COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Progress of implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on progress of implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM and an inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel present in the Community's territory and the future prospects
Date: 2019-12-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, nuclear fuel, nuclear policy, nuclear safety, radioactive pollution, radioactive waste, waste management

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.12.2019  SWD(2019) 436 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Progress of implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on progress of implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM and an inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel present in the Community's territory and the future prospects {COM(2019) 632 final} - {SWD(2019) 435 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4 

STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................ 5 

National policies and frameworks for the safe and responsible management of           
spent fuel and radioactive waste ................................................................................... 5 

2.1.1.  National policies ........................................................................................................... 5 

2.1.2.  National programmes, timeframes and key performance indicators ............................ 6 

2.1.3.  National legal and organisational frameworks ........................................................... 16 

2.1.4.  Regulatory framework and competent regulatory authorities .................................... 20 

2.1.5.  Shipments within EU and to third countries .............................................................. 33 

2.1.6.  Self-assessment and international peer reviews ......................................................... 37 

2.1.7.  Notification and reporting .......................................................................................... 40 

2.2. 

Assuring the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management ....................... 41 

2.2.1.  Licence holder’s responsibilities ................................................................................ 41 

2.2.2.  Concepts and plans (including post closure) .............................................................. 42 

2.2.3.  Safety demonstration .................................................................................................. 53 

2.2.4.  Cost assessment, financing mechanisms and available resources .............................. 54 

2.2.5.  Expertise and skills ..................................................................................................... 64 

2.2.6.  Research and development ......................................................................................... 65 

2.2.7.  Transparency .............................................................................................................. 68 

3. 

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 70 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

ARTEMIS 

Integrated  review  service  for  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel 
management, decommissioning and remediation programmes  

EIA 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

ENSREG 

European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group 

EU 

KPI  

HLW 

IAEA 

ILW 

LLW 

LTO 

IRRS 

NORM 

RAW 

SEA 

SF 

URL 

European Union 

Key Performance Indicators 

High level waste 

International Atomic Energy Agency 

Intermediate level waste 

Low level waste 

Long-Term Operation 

International Regulatory Review Service 

Naturally Occuring Radioactive Material 

Radioactive waste 

Strategic Environmental impact Assessment 

Spent fuel 

Underground Research Laboratory 

VLLW 

Very low level waste 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This Staff Working Document presents details on the outcome of the Commission’s assessment of 
European Union (EU) Member States’ notifications on the implementation of Council Directive 
2011/70/EURATOM  on  responsible  and  safe  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  
(the  “Directive”)1.  This  document  is  primarily  based  on  the  information  provided  in  Member 
States' national programmes for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste2 and national 
reports on the implementation of the Directive3, as notified to the Commission by March 20194. It 
provides  background  information  related  to  the  main  findings,  progress,  challenges,  and  trends 
presented  in  the  Second  Commission  Report  COM(2019)  632  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  on  progress  of  implementation  of  Council  Directive  2011/70/Euratom  and  an 
inventory  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  present  in  the  Community's  territory  and  future 
prospects. 

All Member States submitted their second national reports to the Commission by March 2019 and 
a few Member States also notified to the Commission their final or updated national programmes 
during  the  reporting  period.  In  the  previous  reporting  cycle  in  2015  most  of  the  EU  Member 
States notified their national programmes for the first time and submitted national reports on the 
implementation of the Directive at the same time. In most of the cases Member States focused in 
their  national  reports  on  national  policies  and  principles,  national  frameworks,  national 
programmes  and  their  implementation.  As  this is  the  second  time  that Member  States  report  on 
the  implementation  of  the  Directive,  particular  attention  was  given  by  the  Commission  to  the 
progress made during the reporting period by the Member States in implementing the Directive.  

The  second  Commission  report  is  based  on  the  information  provided  in  the  Member  States’ 
national programmes and their second national reports. Its intention is to provide the Council and 
European  Parliament  with  the  comprehensive  overview  on  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management in the EU. 

2. 

STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 

2.1. 

National policies and frameworks for the safe and responsible management of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste 

2.1.1.  National policies 

Member  States  are  required  to  establish  and  maintain  national  policies  on  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste  management.  It  is  a  key  provision  for  long  term  responsible  and  safe 
management of spent fuel and radioactive waste.  

1  

2  
3  
4  

Council  Directive  2011/70/EURATOM  of  19  July  2011  establishing  a  Community  framework  for  the 
responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 
Article 13(1) and Article 15(4) of the Directive. 
Article 14(1) of the Directive. 
The  deadline  in  the  Directive  is  23  August  2018.  However,  the  last  national  report  has  been  notified  to  the 
Commission in March 2019. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
According  to  the  Directive  each  Member  State  shall  bear  ultimate  responsibility  for  the 
management of the spent fuel and radioactive waste generated in it. It is up to the Member States 
to take a decision whether they will build a single disposal facility for all radioactive waste or a 
number of facilities for different waste types. 

Although the Directive requires that the radioactive waste be disposed of in the Member State in 
which  it  was  generated,  it  introduces  conditions  under  which  the  radioactive  waste  could  be 
disposed  of  in  another  Member  State  or  in  a  third  country  (Article  4(4)  of  the  Directive).  The 
export  of  radioactive  waste  for  disposal5  in  another  Member  State  or  in  a  third  country  is  in 
practice considered by most Member States without a nuclear programme, or which have one or 
several  research  reactors  and  relatively  small  quantities  of  low  level  waste  (LLW)  and 
intermediate  level  waste  (ILW).  More  details  on  shipments  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel 
within the EU and to third countries is provided in section 2.1.5 of this Staff Working Document.  
Article 4(3) of the Directive defines a number of principles national policies shall be based on: 

  Keeping the generation of radioactive waste to a minimum; 
  Ensuring that the interdependencies between all steps in spent fuel and radioactive waste 

management are taken into account; 

  Safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste and passive safety features for long 

term safety; 

  Graded  approach  in  implementation  of  measures  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 

management; 

  The costs for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste shall be borne by those 

who generated those materials; 

  Evidence-based and documented decision making process to all stages of spent fuel and 

radioactive waste management. 

Since the first Commission report few changes took place, however the situation remains broadly 
the  same.  Comprehensive  national  policies  for  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
are established in the majority of Member States. Since their first national report, three Member 
States have amended their national policy to include specific types of radioactive waste or spent 
fuel not included in the previous report, and two other Member States are performing studies on 
possible  options  for  the  final  disposal  of  all  their  radioactive  waste.  With  the  submission  of  a 
revised  national  programme,  Ireland  has  changed  its  policy  by  excluding  development  of  a 
disposal facility. The development of a new policy and a new national programme is ongoing in 
Denmark. However, the national policy in a few countries still does  not cover all types  of their 
radioactive waste or spent fuel.  

Most Member States established clearly in their laws and regulations the ultimate responsibility of 
the  State  for  management  of  the  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  generated  on  its  territory, 
however in most cases no details on the practical implementation have been provided. 

5  

Disposal is defined in Article 3(3) of the Directive as “the emplacement of spent fuel or radioactive waste in 
a facility without the intention of retrieval”. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
Although for most of the Member States, the default option set out in the national policy is the 
final disposal in the Member State’s territory, shared solutions or export of radioactive waste for 
disposal in another Member State or in a third country is considered as an option by most Member 
States  without a nuclear programme and by some Member State with a relatively small  nuclear 
programme.  In  this  case  long  term  storage6  (up  to  100  years  or  more)  in  the  Member  States  is 
foreseen as an interim step. Croatia is expected to take a decision by 2023 on whether to opt for a 
shared solution for disposal of spent fuel from the Krško nuclear power plant. 

In a few Member States with a nuclear programme, the spent fuel is sent for reprocessing while 
most of the Member States with a nuclear programme have opted for its direct disposal without 
reprocessing. A few Member States have kept open the decision to opt for reprocessing or direct 
disposal of the spent fuel. 

The  majority  of  Member  States  manage  radioactive  waste  on  their  territory,  while  a  number  of 
Member States send radioactive waste for processing abroad. In the latter case, as per Article 4(2) 
of the Directive, the Member State of origin remains responsible for the secondary waste as a by-
product generated during the processing. 

All  Member  States  have  included  the  principles  stated  in  Article  4(3)  of  the  Directive  in  their 
legislation.  However,  although  some  Member  States  provide  more  information  in  the  second 
national  report  than  in  the  first,  still  limited  information  on  the  practical  implementation  of  the 
policy  principles  have  been  provided.  Over  a  third  of  Member  States  did  not  report  on  how  all 
principles  have  been  implemented  in  practice.  Only  a  few  Member  States,  mainly  with  large 
nuclear programmes, provided detailed examples on how the principles defined in Article 4(3) are 
applied in practice.  

2.1.2.  National programmes, timeframes and key performance indicators 

NATIONAL PROGRAMMES 

Member States are required to establish national programmes for spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management,  which  define  the  measures,  timeframes  and  milestones  for  the  practical 
implementation  of  national  policies.  They  were  also  required  for  the  first  time  to  notify  these 
programmes to the Commission before 23 August 2015.  

Whereas in 2015 some national programmes were still draft versions, now 27 Member States have 
legally approved and adopted national programmes. The majority of the programmes have been 
adopted  in  the  2015-2016  period,  while  in  one  Member  State  the  programme  dates  as  of  2006. 
Submission of the updated programme7 (as per Article 13(1) of the Directive) is expected by the 
Commission. The most recent national programmes date from 2017 (5 Member States) and 2018 

6  

7  

Storage is defined in Article 3(14) of the Directive as “the holding of spent fuel or of radioactive waste in a 
facility with the intention of retrieval”. 
Spain  is  in  process  of  updating  of  its  existing  national  programme  for  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and 
radiaoctive waste. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
(4  Member  States)8.  As  of  September  2019,  Italy  is  the  only  Member  State  without  a  legally 
approved and adopted national programme.   

The majority of the Member States have defined in their legal framework the responsibilities for 
review, update and implementation of the national programmes, as well as specific arrangements, 
deadlines and conditions fur such review and update (see Table 1). 

Incentives for reviewing and updating the national programmes are most often recommendations 
of  IAEA  IRRS  and/or  ARTEMIS  missions,  letters  of  formal  notice  of non-compliance  with  the 
Directive  sent  by  the  Commission,  and/or  national  decisions  taken  on  changes  to  the  national 
policy  or  national  programme,  as  well  as  the  establishment  in  some  cases  of  a  fixed  period  for 
review  and  update.  About  one  fourth  of  the  Member  States  have  established  in  their  national 
framework  a  fixed  maximum  period  of  time  to  carry  out  the  review  or  update  of  the  national 
programme.  Among  the  rest,  several  Member  States  have  announced  that  their  national 
programmes will be reviewed or updated in the near future. This shows that review mechanisms 
are an important tool leading (in most cases) to an improvement of the national programmes and 
national frameworks. 

Four  of  the  national  programmes  that  were  notified  by  March  2019  are  updates  of  programmes 
submitted to the Commission since the adoption of the Directive. Two out of these four have been 
revised to take account of significant changes in their national framework, whereas the other two 
were revised following a fixed frequency as established by their national framework.  

The  Member  States  that  have  revised  their  national  programmes  to  comply  with  the  review 
periodicity  established  in  their  national  framework  usually  include  a  thorough  update  of  the 
milestones and timeframes, as well as a detailed description of the progress of the implementation 
of the programme. The main improvements of these two national programmes are the inclusion of 
long-term environmental risks, better quality in the estimation of the inventory, and improvements 
in the interim storage of radioactive waste and spent fuel. 

The  Member  States  that  have  revised  their  national  programmes  to  account  for  significant 
modifications of their national framework have made changes in the roles and responsibilities of 
the  entities  responsible  for  several  aspects  of  the  radioactive  waste  management,  and  have 
included  legal  or  organisational  changes,  implementation  of  recommendations  of  international 
peer-review missions, significant improvements of the national programme, etc. 

Almost  all  of  the  national  programmes  cover  all  types  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel,  but 
only a few have developed concrete plans from generation to disposal, including deep geological 
disposal  for  spent  fuel  and  high  level  waste.  A  few  Member  States  recognise  the  existence  of 
exotic  waste  from  research  activities  and  remediation  activities  for  which  a  management  route 
needs still to be developed.  

Of the fourteen Member States with operating nuclear power plants, a few of them have not yet 
decided the long-term management option for their spent fuel. In some of these cases, the strategy 

8  

Two Member States also notified their revised national programmes to the Commission, respectively in July 
and September 2019. Modifications resulting from these revised national programmes are not reflected in the 
present SWD, as this document is based on information notified to the Commission by March 2019. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
is  to continue  implementing the national  programme as  if the spent fuel were to  be disposed of 
directly, whereas in other cases, no irreversible activities will be implemented before the relevant 
decision is finally taken.    

Member States with nuclear programmes focus on the management of spent fuel and radioactive 
waste  generated  in  the  nuclear  industry,  and  provide  much  less  detail  on  the  management  of 
institutional  radioactive  waste.  The  amount  of  institutional  radioactive  waste  is  very  small  in 
comparison with the waste generated in the nuclear industry, and is incorporated in the radioactive 
waste management routes already established.  

The national programmes of Member States which have no nuclear power programmes, but have 
research  reactors,  address  all  types  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  generated  from  research 
reactor  operation.  Only  two  of  these  Member  States  intend  to  continue  the  operation  of  their 
training and research reactor beyond 2025 and 2040 respectively. The rest has already shut down 
their research and training reactors. Three of the Member States with research reactors have plans 
to  ship  their  spent  fuel back  to  the USA.  Another  one  has  shipped  its  spent  fuel  to  the  Russian 
Federation between 2005 and 2008. In addition, two Member States plan to dispose of their spent 
fuel from research reactors in their territory. One of them will explore the possibility of finding an 
international solution for the disposal.  

The national programmes of Member States with no nuclear programmes and no resarch reactors 
cover all types of radioactive waste, but these Member States have not yet defined a policy or a 
route  for  their  disposal,  (beyond  centralised  storage)  except  in  one  case.  Notwithstanding,  they 
have  established  decision-making  milestones  to  progressively  define  more  concretely  the  long 
term management and disposal of radioactive waste. Most of the Member States without nuclear 
power  programmes  consider  finding  a  shared  disposal  solution.  Luxembourg  has  recently 
concluded an agreement with Belgium for the management of part of its radioactive waste. The 
agreement has been ratified by the two Member States. 

To  summarize,  most  Member  States  needs  to  improve  both  their  reporting  quality,  as  well  as 
adopting more concrete policies in order to avoid postponing the important decisions and thereby 
placing burdens on future generations. Table 1 (below) gives an overview of all organisations in 
Member  States  responsible  for  developing  the  programme  for  managing  radioactive  waste  and 
spent fuel, the entity approving it, as well as well as the frequency of their (national) review and 
update  requirements.  In  some  cases,  the  entity  responsible  for  developing  the  programme  and 
approving the programme is the same, which is not considered best practice. 

8 

 
 
 
 
Table 1. Member States' National Programmes under Directive 2011/70/EURATOM 

MS9 

Organisation developing the 
programme 

Organisation approving 

SEA 

Review and latest 
update 

AT 

Federal Government 

Federal Government 

Yes  No fixed periods or 

Federal Council of 
Ministers 

No 

The Council of Ministers 

Yes 

sets of conditions for 
review. 
Adopted in 2018. 
Regular update when a 
national policy is 
adopted or amended. 

Every 5 years. 
2011 Strategy was 
revised in 2015.  
The next revision in 
2019. 

MLWSI 

No 

Every 10 years at least 
by RICS. 

BE 

BG 

CY 

National Programme Committee 
comprised of representatives from the 
Federal Public Service responsible for 
Energy, the Belgian Agency for 
Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile 
Materials (ONDRAF/NIRAS) and 
Synatom 
The review and update of the Programme 
are carried out by an interdepartmental 
working group which is appointed by the 
Minister for Energy and comprises 
representatives of the Ministry of 
Finance, the Ministry of Environment 
and Water, the Ministry of Health, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Agency, the Institute 
for Nuclear Research and Nuclear 
Energy, Kozloduy NPP EAD and the 
State Enterprise Radioactive Waste 
(SERAW). 
Radiation Inspection and Control Service 
(RICS), Department of Labour 
Inspection (DLI), 
Minister of Labour, Welfare and Social 
Insurance (MLWSI) 

CZ  Ministry of Industry and Trade  

Government 

DE 

Federal Ministry for the Environment, 
Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety 

Federal Cabinet 

Yes  Once every 10 years. 
Last revision in 2014 
and the next revision is 
planned in 2019. 

Yes  Costs and financing, 

radioactive  waste 
inventory updated 
every 3 years. 
Periodicity of update 
of national programme 
not clearly stated. 
Not defined in the 
national programme. 

DK 

Danish Health Authority 

Ministry of Health 

No 

9  

Member States’ (MS) abbreviations in this report are as follows: Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), 
Croatia (HR), Cyprus (CY), Czechia (CZ), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany 
(DE), Greece (EL), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Latvia (LV), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), 
Malta (MT), The Netherlands (NL), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Slovakia (SK), Slovenia (SI), 
Spain (ES), Sweden (SE) and the United Kingdom (UK). 

9 

 
 
                                                 
SEA 

Review and latest 
update 
A new national policy 
and associated 
programme is to be 
established due to 
adoption of 
parliamentary 
resolution 890/2018  
(currently under 
development). 
Yes10  Regular update at least 
every 10 years. 
Last revision in 2018. 

MS9 

Organisation developing the 
programme 

Organisation approving 

EE 

The updated National Programme has 
been coordinated by the Ministry of 
Environment, with participation of 
A.L.A.R.A. AS, Radiation Monitoring 
Bureau, QPRE OÜ, the Environmental 
Board, and experts. 

EL 

Greek Atomic Energy Commission 
(EEAE) 

Ministry of the 
Environment, and 
coordinated with the 
Ministry of the Interior, 
the Ministry of Economic 
Affairs and 
Communications, and the 
Ministry of Finance. 
Minister responsible for 
the EEAE, the Minister for 
Education, Research and 
Religious Affairs 

No 
data 

At least once every 3 
years and updated by 
EEAE, upon 
agreement of the 
National Committee 
for Radioactive Waste 
Management 
(EEDRA). 
First revision of the 
national programme by 
the end of 2019. 
Periodic review.  
2006 programme is 
being revised. 

The national 
programme shall be 
updated on the basis of 
the results of the self-
assessment/internation
al peer-review (every 
10 years). 
Every 3 years. 

ES 

ENRESA11 

FI 

Ministry on Employment and the 
Economy 

Government upon proposal 
by Ministry of Industry, 
Energy and Tourism, being 
heard the CSN and 
relevant Autonomous 
Communities 
Ministry on Employment 
and the Economy  

Yes 

No 

The national programme (PNGMDR) is 
reviewed and updated every three years 
by a pluralistic working group co-chaired 
by the DGEC (Directorate General for 

Government 

Yes 

FR 

10  
11  

The national programme states that SEA is available. 
The legal basis requires ENRESA to submit to the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism every 4 years, or 
whenever so required by this Ministry, a draft update of the programme. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
MS9 

Organisation developing the 
programme 

Organisation approving 

SEA 

Review and latest 
update 

Energy and Climate) and ASN (French 
Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority), 
and integrated by waste producers and 
managers, environmental protection 
associations, administrations, experts, the 
HCTISN (French High Committee for 
Transparency and Information on 
Nuclear Safety) Defence Nuclear Safety 
Regulator (ASND), and IRSN. The Plan 
is based on the national inventory of 
radioactive materials and waste, 
periodically published by Andra. The 
Plan is later submitted to, and integrates 
the comments of the OPECST 
(Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation 
of Scientific and Technical Choices), 
State Office for Radiological and 
Nuclear Safety (DZRNS) 

HR 

HU  Ministry of Innovation and Technology 

IE 

Department of Communications, Climate 
Action and Environment (DCCAE). 

IT12  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Protection 

of Land and Sea, 
Ministry of Economic Development 

LT  Ministry  of  Energy  on  the  proposal  of  a 
Management 

Radioactive  Waste 
Organization 
Radioprotection  Division  (DRP)  within 
the Department of Health 

LU 

Government of the 
Republic of Croatia  

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Government after SEA 
completion  
Government  

Ministry  of  Environment 
and Protection of Land and 
Sea, 
Ministry 
Development 
Government 

of  Economic 

No available information 

The Radioactive Waste 
and Spent Nuclear Fuel 
Disposal Programme 
shall be reviewed 
every five years at 
least. The 
Decommissioning 
Programme shall be 
reviewed every five 
years at least. 
Adopted in 2018. 
Every 5 years 

Update and revision as 
necessary.  
Last revision in 2018. 
Every 3 years. 

Yes 

Every 7 years at least. 

No 
data 

Yes 

No information on 
periodicity of national 
programme update. 
Every 10 years. 

LV   Minister for Environmental Protection 

Council of Ministers 

and Regional Development 
MT   Radiation Protection Commission 

Radiation Protection 

No 

No information. 

12  

Data provided by Italy in response to infringement procedure, as no national programme is adopted. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
Organisation approving 

SEA 

Commission 
Parliament 

Council of Ministers 

data 
No 

Yes 

Council of Ministers 

Yes 

No available information 

Yes 

Review and latest 
update 

At least every 10 years. 

Every 4 years. 
The next revision in 
2019. 
The next revision in 
2019. 
Every 5 years. 

Ministry of the 
Environment and Energy 
National Assembly 

No 

Every 10 years. 

No 

Every 10 years. 

Government 

Yes 

Every 6 years. 
The next revision in 
2021. 

Department of Energy and 
Climate Change 

No 

At least every 10 years. 

MS9 

Organisation developing the 
programme 

NL  Ministry 

of 

Infrastructure 

and 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Environment 
Ministry of Economy  

Regulatory Commission for the Safety of 
Nuclear Installations (COMRSIN)13 
Nuclear Agency and for Radioactive 
Waste (ANDR) 
Swedish Radiation Safety Authority 

for 

Radioactive  Waste 
Agency 
Management  (ARAO)  and  Slovenian 
Nuclear Safety Administration (SNSA)14   

The administrative board of the National 
Nuclear Fund for decommissioning 
nuclear installations and managing spent 
nuclear fuel and radioactive waste (NNF) 
The Lead Document has been prepared 
by the Department of Energy 
and Climate Change (DECC) with the 
cooperation of the Devolved 
Administrations, waste management 
organisations and regulators 

NORM WASTE 

Around half of all EU Member States addressed naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) 
in their programmes, whereas the rest either explicitly exclude it from the scope of their national 
programmes, or do not mention it. This approach is in line with the Directive. 

TIMEFRAMES 

The  Directive  requires  the  national  programmes  to  cover  the  whole  period  until  disposal  of  all 
radioactive waste (Article 11(1)). The overall timescale of Member States' programmes for spent 
fuel and radioactive waste management vary significantly due to the scope and scale of the current 
nuclear  programmes  in  each  Member  State,  but  can  extend  to  more  than  one  hundred  years, 
excluding long term monitoring. This imposes challenges for the Member States, in particular the 

13  

14  

Following the entry in force of the new regulatory framework for radiation protection nuclear safety and safe 
management of radioactive waste on 2 April 2019, the Portuguese Environment Agency became the regulatory 
authority for Portugal succeeding COMRSIN. 
ARAO  provides  the  technical  basis  for  the  revision  of  the  Programme  and  based  on  this,  SNSA  prepares  a 
draft National Programme which is adopted by National Assembly. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ones  with  nuclear  programmes,  to  ensure  long  term  safety  measures  for  several  decades  to 
centuries in the future.  

About two thirds of the Member States  have  defined milestones  and timeframes  for  their entire 
programme.  A  few  Member  States  have  developed  milestones  and  timeframes  only  up  to  the 
period  of  validity  of  their  national  programme,  or  up  to  the  point  in  which  the  policy  for 
management of radioactive waste and spent fuel is no longer defined, which is not in line with the 
Directive. In general terms, the milestones and timeframes are better  i.e. more precisely defined 
for the short-to-medium term, and become more diffuse as the programme progresses in time.  

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Key  performance  indicators  as  required  by  the  Directive  allow  monitoring  the  progress  of 
implementation of the national programme. However, only a few Member States have defined key 
performance  indicators  in  their  national  programmes.  Around  one  fourth  of  the  Member  States 
use  milestones  and  timeframes  defined  in  their  national  programmes  as  means  to  measure  the 
progress of implementation. This approach may allow monitoring the fulfilment of specific goals 
in  the  national  programme,  but  cannot  replace a  set  of  well  defined  key  performance  indicators 
which provide more appropriate means to monitor the progress of implementation.  

One third of the Member States do not define key performance indicators at all in their national 
programmes. 

The long time frames and associated key performance indicators are a necessary tool, given the 
long-term nature of most radioactive waste and spent fuel management programmes. Radioactive 
waste  and  spent  fuel  is  expected  to  be  also  generated  from  nuclear  power  plants  when 
decommissioned (please see table 2 for the current schedule of decommissioning of EU nuclear 
power plants), which shows that the next few decades will see large amounts of such waste being 
generated.  

Table 2. Schedule for Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants in EU Member States15 

MS 

Reactors/Units 

Doel (unit 1) 

Start 

1975 

Shutdown 

2025 

Decommission-
ing 

BE 

Doel (unit 2) 

Doel (unit 3) 

Doel (unit 4) 

Tihange (unit 1) 

Tihange (unit 2) 

1975 

1982 

1985 

1975 

1983 

2025 

2022 

2025 

2025 

2023 

15  

At the time of reporting to the Commission (2018). 

13 

Comments 

End of operation 
dates by Phase-
out Law of 
31/01/2003 
modified by the 
law of 
28/06/2015. 
Same as for D1 

Same as for D1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
MS 

Reactors/Units 

Start 

Shutdown 

Decommission-
ing 

Comments 

Tihange (unit 3) 

Kozloduy (unit 1) 

Kozloduy (unit 2) 

Kozloduy (unit 3) 

Kozloduy (unit 4) 

Kozloduy (unit 5) 

Kozloduy (unit 6) 

BG 

1985 

1974 

1975 

1980 

1982 

1987 

1991 

2025 

2002 

2002 

2006 

2006 

2047 

2021 (2051) 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Dukovany (units 1-4) 

1985-1987* 

2038 - 2047 

Temelin (units 1-2) 

2000-2002* 

2060-2062 

CZ 

Dukovany (unit 5) 

Planned 

Temelin (unit 3) 

Planned 

10 reactors shutdown 

1975-1984 

No available 
data 
No available 
data 
2011-2017  

Available data 
until 2030 

30 years LTO 
Planned 30 years 
LTO 
LTO 

60 years operation 

60 years operation 

60 years operation 

7 reactors in operation 

1984-1989 

2019-2022 

2 reactors undergoing 
decommissioning ( 
José Cabrera and 
Vandellos I) 

1 reactor shutdown 
(Santa María de 
Garoña) 

1969-1972 

2006 and 1989 

Ongoing 

1971 

2012 

7 operating reactors* 

1981-1988 

2021-2027 

Assuming 40 
years operation 

Olkiluoto (unit 1) 

1979 

Olkiluoto (unit 2) 
Olkiluoto (unit 3) 
Loviisa (unit 1) 
Loviisa (unit 2) 
Hanhikivi 
58 reactors and 9 
shutdown reactors and 
EPR Flamanville 
Paks (units 1-4) 

Paks (units 5-6) 
Caorso 

Enrico Fermi 

Garigliano 

Latina 

Ignalina (unit 1) 

Ignalina (unit 2) 

1982 
Planned 2019 
1977 
1981 
Planned 2028* 
1977 – 1999 
(operating fleet) 

2049* 

2042* 
2078* 
2027* 
2030* 

Between 2027 
and 2078 

2080-2090 
2080-2090 
2075-2085 
2030-2035 
2030-2035 
2085-2100 

After 2030 

1982-1987 

2032-2037 

2061 

2029-2030* 
1978 

1964 

1964 

1963 

1983 

1987 

14 

1990 

1990 

1982 

1987 

2004 

2009 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 
Ongoing until 
2038 

Ongoing until 
2038 

Operating lifetime 
of 50 years 

20 years LTO 

Planned 

DE 

ES* 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IT 

LT 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Reactors/Units 

NL 

PL 

Dodewaard 

Borssele 

New build 

Cernavoda (unit 1)  

Start 

1968* 

1973* 

2024 

1996 

RO 

Cernavoda (unit 2) 

2007 

Cernavoda (units 3-4)  

Barsebäck (units 1-2) 

Forsmark (units 1-3) 

SE 

Oskarshamn  
(units 1-3) 

Ringhals (units 1-4) 

SI 

Krško  

Bohunice V1  
(units 1-2) 
Bohunice V2  
(units 1-2)  

Planned 
2019-2020 
1975 
1977 
1980 
1981 
1985 
1972 
1975 
1985 
1976 
1975 
1981 
1983 

1983 

1978* 
1980* 
1984* 
1985* 

Shutdown 

1997* 

2033 

2084 

2026 

2037 

Planned 

1999 
2005 
2023 
2023 
2025 
2017 
2015 
2025 
2020 
2019 
2023 
2023 

2023 

2006 
2008 
2024 or 2044 
2025 or 2045 

Bohunice A1 

1972* 

Bohunice (unit 3) 

Planned (2029) 

1979 

2089 

Mochovce (units 1-2) 

1998* 
1999* 

2028 or 2046 
2029 or 2066 

SK 

Mochovce (units 3-4) 

Under 
construction 
(2021) 

2062 
2082 

UK* 

15 (14 AGR, 1 PWR) 
reactors in operation 

30 reactors shutdown 

1976-1989 

2023-2035 (or 
2055) 

15 

Decommission-
ing 

After 2045 

Comments 

Possible LTO to 
2046 
Possible LTO to 
2057 

2063 

2055 

Immediate 
dismantling 

Ringhals 1-2 
planned shutdown 
before the end of 
2020 
Option to extend 
lifetime operation 
up to 2043 

Possible LTO to 
60 years of 
operation 

Possible LTO to 
60 years 

Possible LTO to 
60 years 

Possible PWR 
LTO to 60 years 

2023 

Finished in 2025 
2031-2048 (40 
years operation) 
2051-2068 (60 
years operation) 

2033 

2046-2063 (40 
years of 
operation) 
2066-2083 (60 
years of 
operation) 
2062-2079 (40 
years of 
operation) 
2082-2099 (60 
years of 
operation) 
2023-2083 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Reactors/Units 

Start 

Shutdown 

Decommission-
ing 

Comments 

New build (Hinkley 
Point C, further 5 
plants proposed) 

*Information from other sources to the Commission than the national programmes and national reports 

Most  of  the  Member  States  have  reported  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  national 
programmes in their national reports, mainly by describing what has been achieved since the last 
report,  and  many  Member  States  have  updated  their  milestones  and  timeframes.  However,  not 
even  the  few  Member  States  that  have  defined  key  performance  indicators  in  their  national 
programmes report on the status of these indicators in their national reports. 

In general terms, and except for a few cases, the implementation of the national programmes  is 
progressing  according  to  the  schedule.  In  some  cases,  some  milestones  have  been  delayed,  in 
other cases they have been brought forward, but without jeopardising the overall implementation 
in the longer term.  

In a few cases, decision timeframes regarding the selection of sites for radioactive waste disposal 
(generally deep geological disposal for Member States with nuclear programmes, and centralised 
storage  or  disposal sites in  Member States  without  a nuclear  programme) have  been postponed. 
Ensuring  the  sufficient  storage  capacity  for  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  until  the  disposal 
facilities  are  available  has  already  been  reflected  by  the  Member  States  e.g.  in  their  plans  to 
monitor the generation of radioactive waste and spent fuel, and their plans to build interim storage 
facilities. 

Member States are expected to progressively define key performance indicators in their national 
programmes and report on the status of these indicators in the periodic national reports so that the 
progress  of  implementation  of  the  national  programmes,  and  the  progress  of  radioactive  waste 
management and spent fuel in the EU at large can be more easily assessed. 

2.1.3.  National legal and organisational frameworks 

Member  States  are  required  to  establish  and  maintain  a  national  legislative,  regulatory  and 
organisational  framework  (‘national  framework’)  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management  that  allocates  responsibility  and  provides  for  coordination  between  relevant 
competent  bodies  (Article  5(1)  of  the  Directive).  Member  States  were  required  to  transpose  the 
Directive  by  23  August  2013.  This  section  of  the  report  presents  the  status  of  Member  States' 
legal and organizational frameworks, while the regulatory framework is detailed in Section 2.1.4 
below. 

In  the  first  report  the  Commission  stated  that  all  Member  States  have  communicated  to  the 
Commission  their transposition measures  and declared full transposition. During  the conformity 
assessment of the latest notified legal measures the Commission concluded that the transposition 
in  several  Member  States  is  still  incomplete.  Some  Member  States  already  have  indicated 
additional measures to ensure full transposition. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In  the  second  national  reports  Member  States  have  presented  their  national  framework  with 
different  level  of  details.  Most  Member  States  kept  the  same  reporting  approach  as  in  the  first 
national reports by listing the legal arrangements and the provisions for the national framework, 
and only in some cases the national reports have provided details on how those legal provisions 
are implemented in  practice.  While reporting changes and developments in  the reporting  period 
most Member States only provided a list of new or ammended legal acts without specifying what 
are  the  actual  impacts  of  those  changes  (e.g.  is  there  any  change  introduced  by  the  new  or 
amended  legal  acts  to  the  allocation  of  responsibilities  or  to  the  coordination  between  relevant 
competent bodies). This approach diminishes the usefulness of the reports, and needs to improve. 

It can be noted that Member States with nuclear power plants are more advanced in establishing 
and  maintaining  national  legal  and  organisational  frameworks,  since  the  main  part  of  the 
legislation required in the Directive is already present in the Member States´ national laws. Some 
Member  States  without  nuclear  power  plants  struggle  with  transposing  the  Directive  (Council 
Directive  2011/70/Euratom)  as  they  are  in  the  process  of  transposing  the  Council  Directives 
2014/87/Euratom  (Nuclear  Safety  Directive)16  and  2013/59/Euratom  (Basic  Safety  Standards 
Directive)17. 

Once  a  national  framework  is  fully  implemented  a  step-wise  improvement  of  the  national 
framework, through self-assessments and international reviews, can be effectively pursued. Most 
Member States require an update and improvement of the national framework as per Article 5(2) 
of  the  Directive,  and  establish  the  responsibilities  for  that.  In  general,  improvements  of  the 
national  framework  are  mainly  made  through  international  peer  reviews  (i.e.  IAEA  IRRS  and 
ARTEMIS peer-review services). The Commission notes that Member States with nuclear power 
programmes  are  more  inclined  to  make  self-assessments  of  the  national  framework  and 
implement  these  more  rapidly.  Almost  half  of  the  Member  States  hosted  an  IRRS  and/or 
ARTEMIS  peer-review  during  the  reporting  period  (mainly  in  2017-2018)  and  the  resulting 
outcomes/recommendations’ 
the  following 
reporting  period.  Overall,  IAEA  IRRS  and  ARTEMIS  peer-review  missions  significantly 
contribute  to  the  national  framework  improvement  of  Member  States  without  nuclear  power 
programmes.  Member  States  with  nuclear  power  programmes  already  have  a  comprehensive 
national framework in place due to regular self-assessments and IAEA peer-reviews in the past. 

implementation/improvements  are  expected 

in 

All Member States have established laws or regulations requiring to take into account operating 
experience,  insights  gained  from  the  decision-making  process  and  the  development  of  relevant 
technology and research. However, most Member States provide in their second national reports 
very little detail on how the development and review of the national framework takes into account 
operating experience or research in practice.  

All  nuclear  power  and  most  of  non-nuclear  power  Member  States  have  dedicated  radioactive 
waste management organisations. In their second national reports two Member States (Germany 

16  

17  

Council  Directive  2014/87/Euratom  of  8  July  2014  amending  Directive  2009/71/Euratom  establishing  a  Community 
framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations, OJ L 219, 25.7.2014, p. 42–52. 
Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the 
dangers  arising  from  exposure  to  ionising  radiation,  and  repealing  Directives  89/618/Euratom,  90/641/Euratom, 
96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, OJ L 13, 17.1.2014, p. 1–73. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
and Lithuania) reported significant changes. In most of the cases waste management organisations 
are public entities (see Table 3), while a few are established by the nuclear power plant operators. 
In both cases, funding of spent fuel and radioactive waste management activities is based on the 
principle that the generators of spent fuel and radioactive waste cover the costs associated with the 
management  of  this  material.  In  addition  to  the  responsibilities  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 
waste management, in a number of cases, these organisations deal also with decommissioning. In 
some  cases,  it  is  foreseen  that  the  responsibilities  for  the  disposal  facilities  will  be  transferred 
from the radioactive waste management organisations to the State after the closure of the disposal 
facility. 

Several  Member  States  reported  recent  reorganisations  of  their  radioactive  waste  management 
organisations.  The  current  list  of  the  radioactive  waste  management  organisations  in  the  EU  is 
given in Table 3.   

18 

 
 
 
 
Table 3. Radioactive waste management organisations in the EU 

MS 

Radioactive waste 
management 
organisation 
AT  Nuclear Engineering 

Seibersdorf GmbH (NES) 

BE  Organisme national des 
déchets radioactifs 
et des matières fissiles 
enrichies/Nationale 
instelling voor radioactief 
afval 
en verrijkte splijtstoffen 
(ONDRAF/NIRAS) 
State Enterprise 
Radioactive Waste (SE 
RAW) 

BG 

Public/ 
private 

Public/ 
private 
Public 

Responsibilities 

Collecting,  processing,  conditioning  and  storing  radioactive 
waste, decontaminating installations and laboratories. 
Managing radioactive waste from all sources, managing spent 
fuel when declared as radioactive waste, including disposal.  

Public 

Radioactive  waste  and 
decommissioning.  

spent 

fuel  management  and 

CZ  Radioactive Waste 

Public 

Repository Authority 
(SURAO) 

DE 

Federal Company for 
Radioactive Waste 
Disposal (BGE) 

Public/ 
private 
legal entity 

Federal Company for 
Radioactive Waste 
Storage (BGZ) 

Public/ 
private 
legal entity 

DK  Danish Decommissioning 

Public 

(DD) 

EE  A.L.A.R.A. AS 

EL  National Committee for 
Radioactive Waste 
Management (EEDRA)  

Public 

Public 

Operation of all low and intermediate level waste repositories. 
monitoring of the now closed Hostim repository, development 
of deep geological repository for disposal of HLW and spent 
fuel. 
In  July  2016,  the  Bundesgesellschaft  für  Endlagerung  mbH 
(BGE)  was  founded  as  a  private-law  entity  under  the  sole 
ownership of the Federal Government. Its remit is to act as a 
project  sponsor  for  the  planning,  construction,  operation  and 
decommissioning  of  final  repositories,  and  manage  the 
relevant  funds.  Operator  responsibilities  were  transferred  to 
BGE on 25 April 2017. 
Interim  storage  of  irradiated  fuel  elements  and  radioactive 
waste generated by the operators referred to BGZ by the Act 
reassigning  responsibility  for  radioactive  waste  management. 
Since August 2017, BGZ has operated the centralised interim 
storage facilities in Ahaus and Gorleben. On 1 January 2019, 
responsibility for the 12 decentralised interim storage facilities 
at  the  sites  of  the  German  nuclear  power  plants  was 
transferred to BGZ. On 1 January 2020, responsibility for the 
12 interim  storage  facilities  for  low-level  and  intermediate-
level  radioactive  waste  at  the  nuclear  power  plant  sites  (as 
referred to in the Act) will also be transferred. 

Decommissioning  and  receiving,  handling  and  storage  of 
radioactive  waste.  Also  licensed  operator  for  all  radioactive 
waste. 
Former  Paldiski  nuclear  site  and  Tammiku  radioactive  waste 
repository management and decontamination. 
EEDRA is a collegiate body with advisory and supportive role 
towards  the  Minister  on  the  implementation  of  the  practical 
aspects of the national policy and national framework and on 
the  coordination  of  the  bodies  involved  in  RW  management. 
EEDRA can be interpreted as having a WMO-like role in the 
country  by  being  independent  from  the  waste  producers, 

19 

 
 
 
MS 

Radioactive waste 
management 
organisation 

Public/ 
private 

Responsibilities 

maintaining  its  autonomy  in  relation  to  the  regulatory 
authorities  due  to  its  diverse  composition,  and  having  a 
flexible, optimal and effective form. 

Public18  Management  of 

radioactive  waste 
decommissioning nuclear power plants.  

and 

spent 

fuel, 

Private19   Radioactive  waste  management  facilities  -  site  selection, 
design, construction, commissioning, operation, rehabilitation 
and reconstruction, decommissioning and closure/post closure. 
Long-term management of radioactive waste. 

Public 

ES  National radioactive waste 
company (ENRESA) 
POSIVA 

FI 

FR  National agency for 

management of 
radioactive waste 
(ANDRA) 
HR  Radioactive Waste 

Management Centre 
(RWMC) 

Public 

HU 

IT 

Public Limited Company 
for Radioactive Waste 
Management (PURAM) 
Company for the Nuclear 
Installations Management, 
Società Gestione Impianti 
Nucleari (SOGIN)  

Public 

Public 

LT 

LV 

NL 

State Enterprise Ignalina 
Nuclear Power  
Plant 

Latvian Environment, 
Geology and Meteorology 
Centre (LEGMC) 
The Central Organisation 
For Radioactive Waste 
(COVRA) 

Public 

Public 

Public 

of 

of 

all 

The Centre for the Management of Radioactive Waste is a unit 
of  the  Fund  for  financing  the  decommissioning  of  the  Krško 
Power  Plant  and  the  management  of  the  Plant’s  radioactive 
waste  and  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  comprises  the  facilities  for 
the processing, conditioning, handling, long-term storage and 
disposal of  radioactive  waste  and disused  sources originating 
on  the  territory  of  the  Republic  of  Croatia,  including  the 
central  repository,  and  radioactive  waste  and  spent  nuclear 
fuel which did not originate on the territory of the Republic of 
Croatia but for which there is a waste management obligation 
under the International Treaty. 
Management 
radioactive  waste, 
types 
decommissioning  of  nuclear  facilities,  as  well  as  related  to 
research and development. 
Treatment  and  conditioning  into  certified  form  of  all  liquid 
and  solid  wastes,  ready  to  be  delivered  to  the  National 
Repositor. Perform all the actions needed for managing spent 
fuel;  contribute  to  the  decommissioning  of  all  nuclear 
single 
facilities owned by other licensees.  Implement 
phase  decommissioning  strategy  in  all  nuclear  installations, 
reactors and fuel cycle facilities, pending the realization in due 
time  of  the  temporary  and  final  repository  of  radioactive 
waste. 
Assigned  as  sole  entity  which  is  responsible  for  safe 
management of all the Lithuanian radioactive waste and spent 
nuclear fuel, defined major requirements for the preparation of 
the final closure plan of the disposal facility. 
Processing,  reprocessing,  storage  for  an  extended  period  of 
time (long-term storage) and disposal of radioactive waste. 

the 

Implementing  the  Dutch  policy  with  regard  to  radioactive 
waste  in  the  Netherlands.  Treatment  and  storage  of  all 
radioactive waste and spent fuel. 

18  
19  

State-owned company CIEMAT (80%) and SEPI (20%). 
Owned by the NPP operators Teollisuuden Voima Oyj and Fortum Power & Heat Oy. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
MS 

PL 

Radioactive waste 
management 
organisation 

Radioactive Waste 
Management Plant 
(ZUOP) 

PT 

Instituto Superior Técnico 
(IST)  

RO  Nuclear Agency for 
Radioactive Waste 
(ANDR) 

Public/ 
private 

Public 

Public 

Public 

SE 

Swedish Nuclear Fuel and 
Waste Management 
Company (SKB) 

Private20 

SI 

Agency for Radwaste 
Management (ARAO)  

Public 

SK  Nuclear and 

Public 

Decommissioning 
Company (JAVYS) 
UK  Nuclear Decommissioning 
Authority (NDA) 

Responsibilities 

Collection,  segregation,  and  treatment,  conditioning  and 
interim  storage/final  disposal  of  all  radioactive  waste  arising 
in  the  country.  Operating  the  National  Radioactive  Waste 
Repository in Różan. 
Collecting,  segregating,  conditioning  and  storing  solid  and 
liquid radioactive waste. 
Promotion,  development  and  monitoring  of  the  nuclear 
activities. Coordination of the safe management of radioactive 
waste  and  spent  nuclear  fuel,  including  final  disposal,  at 
national level. 
Planning  and  construction  of  all  facilities  required  for  the 
management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  wastes  as 
well  as  for  research  and  development  programmes  necessary 
for the provision of such facilities. 
Collecting, transporting, treating, storing and disposing of low 
and  intermediate  level  waste  and  for  the  disposal  of  HLW. 
Management of the closed uranium mine. 

Management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste. 
Decommissioning of the nuclear power plants. 

Public 

Implementing  Government  policy  on 
long-term 
management of nuclear waste, including the decommissioning 
and clean-up of the civil public sector nuclear sites. 

the 

2.1.4.  Regulatory framework and competent regulatory authorities 

Member States are required to establish and maintain a competent regulatory authority in the field 
of  safety  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management.  This  authority  shall  be  functionally 
separate  from  any  other  body  or  organisation  concerned  with  the  promotion  or  utilisation  of 
nuclear  energy  or  radioactive  material,  or  with  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 
waste. It shall and be given the legal powers, as well as human and financial resources necessary 
to fulfil its obligations (Article 6 of the Directive).  

As  it  was  concluded  in  the  first  Commission  report,  all  EU  Member  States  have  established 
national competent authorities with defined responsibilities and legal powers in the area of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste management (see Table 4). The majority of Member States have only 
one  competent  authority,  while  in  others,  two  or  more  organisations  have  competence  and 
regulatory functions in different aspects of spent fuel and radioactive waste management. In these 
cases, one of the authorities is competent for regulation and oversight of the management of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste originating from nuclear facilities, while another one is responsible for 
the safe management of institutional radioactive waste. 

20  

Reactors licensees. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In some Member States, there are regional regulatory authorities (such is the case of the United 
Kingdom and Germany), along with federal or national ones. As a general trend, Member States 
with  nuclear  programmes  have  provided  more  information  and  details  on  the  authority  that 
regulates nuclear energy than on the ones responsible for the regulation of the institutional waste. 
The  Commission  notes  that  there  is  insufficient  information  in  the  national  reports  on  the 
local/regional  competent  authorities  (when  applicable)  dealing  with  radioactive  waste 
management. 

In  order  to  strengthen  regulatory  supervision  recently  a  few  Member  States  have  introduced 
changes  to  their  competent  regulatory  authorities,  such  as  the  creation  of  new  authorities, 
reorganisation or  consolidation of functions and few Member  States are planning changes to be 
introduced soon. 

Most  of  the  Member  States  declare  the  independence  of  their  regulatory  authorities  from  any 
other organisation or body (i) promoting or using nuclear energy or (ii) managing spent fuel and 
radioactive waste. In most cases, functional or administrative independency is established in the 
relevant national law. The regulatory authority is in some cases embedded in a Ministry, and in 
others  it  is  an  autonomous  body  which  reports  to  the  national  Parliament,  the  Council  of 
Ministries, or the Government.  

Most  of  the  Member  States  have  successfully  demonstrated  functional  independence  of  their 
competent regulatory authority. However, further efforts are needed to demonstrate and achieve 
functional  independence  of  the  competent  regulatory  authority  in  one  fourth  of  the  Member 
States. 

In  general  terms,  regulatory  authorities  from  countries  without  nuclear  power  programmes  are 
usually small, corresponding to the radioactive waste inventories to be managed, and often form 
part  of  the  administrative  structure  of  the  State.  In  one  particular  case,  the  national  regulatory 
authority has neither staff, nor budget, and carries out its regulatory function through staff of other 
governmental bodies. In March 2019, the regulatory authorities of two EU Member States (Italy 
and  Portugal)  were  being  reorganised  with  the  objective  of  reinforcing  their  functional 
independence, while the regulatory bodies of Germany and the Netherlands had been reorganised 
recently. 

In addition to the functional and administrative independence, technical and financial capacity are 
also  necessary  elements  for  an  effectively  independent  regulatory  authority  capable  of 
implementing  its  responsibilities  within  the  licensing  system  put  in  place  for  the  safety  of 
radioactive waste and spent fuel.  

The  national  reports  of  most  of  the  Member  States  have  provided  information  on  measures  for 
ensuring technical and financial independence. Examples of such measures include, for instance, 
ensuring  adequate  human  resources  and  sufficient  funding  by  law,  establishing  fees  to  the 
licensees, negotiation of the budget, etc. 

The national reports of most of the Member States provided information on the human resources 
of the competent authority by indicating actual number of staff. However, information given by a 
few Member States was limited to a generic statement that resources are sufficient. Only in a few 
cases staff needs to fulfil regulatory functions were clearly indicated, thus in most of the cases it is 
22 

 
 
difficult  to  evaluate  sufficiency  of  human  resources.  Most  of  the  Member  States  kept  staff 
numbers stable during the reporting period and few Member States increased number of staff.  
Demonstration of the technical independence of the competent regulatory authorities still requires 
further improvements. Only half of the Member States provided information on the competence 
of their staff, availability of technical support organisations or other experts' support as well as on 
the mechanisms in place to maintain staff competence. A few Member States have not reported 
any  information  on  competences  of  their  staff  or  on  mechanisms  in  place  to  maintain  staff 
competence.  

Half of the Member States have clearly or partially reported financial resources available to their 
competent  regulatory  authorities  (see  Table  4).  A  few  Member  States  provided  information  on 
how  the  management  of  the  regulatory  authority  is  appointed  or  dismissed,  to  show  that 
management is not subject to undue influence in its regulatory mission.  

Member States (and in particular those without nuclear energy programmes) face challenges with 
respect to maintaining adequate human resources in the long term. Even if the total staff number 
remains stable, some Member States expressed concerns due to the high turnover rate of the staff 
and  related  challenges  in  knowledge  preservation,  training  of  new  staff,  and  build  up  of 
competence. Only a few Member States have clearly indicated the available limited budget and/or 
human resources to perform the regulatory functions of the national competent authorities.  

It has to be noted that some Member States provided very limited information on their competent 
regulatory  authorities  in  the  national  reports,  while  their  Joint  Convention  reports  provided 
significantly  more  information  (e.g.  on  financial  and  human  resources,  mechanisms  to  maintain 
competence, etc.). 

Table 4. National Competent Authorities for spent fuel and radioactive waste management21 

MS 

AT 

Competent 
authority 

Responsibilities for spent fuel and 
radioactive waste 

Federal Ministry for 
Sustainability and 
Tourism (BMNT) 

for 

authority 

the 
BMNT-regulatory 
operation  of  facilities  for  the  disposal  of 
radioactive  waste.  BMNT 
also 
competent  as  regards  the  enforcement  of 
requirements 
legal 
applicable  to  facilities  for  the  disposal  of 
radioactive  waste 
further 
also 
obligations arising from licences. 

regulations 

and 

and 

is 

Federal Ministry of 
Education, Science and 
Research (BMBWF) 
Federal Agency for 
Nuclear Control 
(FANC) 

BE 

BMBWF –  is the  competent authority for 
the TRIGA research reactor. 

With  regard  to  the  safety  of  disposal 
facilities, 
regulatory 
authority, i.e. the AFCN/FANC, retains all 
of its prerogatives. 

competent 

the 

Reporting to 

Federal 
Government 

Staff 
[year] 

Data not 
available 

Ministry of Home 
Affairs 

~160 
[2018] 

21  

The data does not include staff of separate technical support organisations that exist in some Member States. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Competent 
authority 

Responsibilities for spent fuel and 
radioactive waste 

MS 

BG 

HR 

Nuclear Regulatory 
Agency of the Republic 
of Bulgaria (BNRA) 

State Office for 
Radiological and 
Nuclear Safety 
(DZRNS) 

BNRA has been assigned responsibility for 
concerning 
all 
radioactive  waste 
fuel 
management facilities. 

regulatory  matters 
and 

spent 

implementation  of 

Establishes  the  legislative  framework  in 
the  area  of  radiological,  nuclear  and 
physical safety. 
Coordinates the drafting of the Strategy. 
Regulates spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management. 
Coordinates  the  drafting  of  the  National 
the 
programme  for 
Strategy. 
Participates  in  administrative  procedures 
for  obtaining  permits  and  authorisations 
for  management  facilities  included  under 
the Strategy. 
Reporting  and  public  information  on  the 
management  of  radioactive  waste  and 
spent fuel. 
The  MLWSI, 
the 
acting 
RICS/DLI,  is  the  regulatory  authority  for 
radiation protection and nuclear safety and 
has 
the 
responsibility 
administration  of  the  relevant  legislation 
and  authorisation  of  all  sources  and 
practices  involving  risks  of  exposure  to 
ionising radiation or release of radioactive 
materials in the environment. 
State administration and supervision of the 
utilization  of  nuclear  energy  and  ionizing 
radiation  and  in  the  field  of  radiation 
protection. 

through 

the 

for 

Regulates all use of radioactive substances, 
including  management  of 
radioactive 
waste in Denmark. 
Regulatory  oversight  of 
installations at Risø. 
Regulatory  oversight  of 
installations at Risø. 

the  nuclear 

the  nuclear 

Reporting to 

Council of 
Ministers 

The Government 
of the Republic of 
Croatia 

Staff 
[year] 

103 
[2015] 
101 [2016] 
94 
 [2017] 
22 
[2015] 
22 (49 
positions 
foreseen) 
[2018] 

Ministry of 
Labour, Welfare 
and Social 
Insurance 
(MLWSI) 

5 
[2015] 
5 
[2018] 

Prime Minister 

Minister of Health 

Minister of Health 

209 
[2014] 

No data. 
Only 
qualitative 
statement  
[2018] 

No data. 
Only 
qualitative 
statement 
[2018] 
No data 

CY 

Radiation Inspection and 
Control Service – 
Department of Labour 
Inspection (RICS/DLI) 

CZ 

State Office for Nuclear 
Safety (SUJB) 

DK 

The Danish Health 
Authority  

The Nuclear Division of 
the Danish Emergency 
Management Agency  

EE 

The Radiation 
Regulatory Authority in 

The  Environmental  Board  takes  part  in 
drawing  up  and  implementing  policies, 

Ministry of the 
Environment 

17 
[2014] 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Competent 
authority 

Responsibilities for spent fuel and 
radioactive waste 

Reporting to 

Staff 
[year] 

Estonia is exercised by 
the: 
Ministry of Environment  

The Environmental 
Inspectorate  

The Environmental 
Board 

FI 

Radiation and Nuclear 
Safety Authority 
(STUK) 

FR 

The Parliament, the 
Government and 
Nuclear Safety 
Authority (ASN)  

of 

the 

practice 

licences. 

radioactivity  and 

development  plans  and  programmes.  It 
processes  and  issues  radiation  practice 
licences,  assesses  the  radiation  safety  of 
planned  and  ongoing  radiation  practices, 
maintains  radiation-related  databases  and 
cooperates  with 
the  Environmental 
Inspectorate  to  arrange  supervision  of 
radiation 
The 
Environmental  Board  also  organises  the 
monitoring  of 
the 
analysis  of 
results,  undertakes 
laboratory  analyses  of  the  radioactivity  of 
substances,  conducts  studies  of  natural 
exposure,  assesses  public  exposure  and 
ensures  the  functioning  of  the  essential 
early  warning  service  for  radiation  safety. 
radiation  safety, 
State  supervision  of 
waste 
including 
management, 
the 
Environmental Inspectorate. Infringing the 
requirements  of  a 
licence  and  acting 
without  a  licence  where  a  licence  is 
required are both punishable offence. 
STUK  is  responsible  for  controlling  that 
the  Radiation  Act  and  other  regulations 
based  on  the  Act  are  followed.  STUK 
grants  safety  licences  for  the  use  of 
radiation.  The  regulatory  rights  of  STUK 
are described in the Radiation Act. In May 
2015  the  Nuclear  Energy  Act  and  the 
Radiation  Act  were  amended  in  such  a 
way  that  the  mandate  of  STUK  was 
increased.  Based  on  those  legal  changes 
STUK  has  the  authority  to  issue  binding 
regulations,  which  have  replaced  some  of 
the lower level government decrees related 
to nuclear and radiation safety. 

radioactive 
conducted  by 

is 

public 

Regulates,  authorises,  controls  and  helps 
to  manage 
the 
authorities 
emergencies,  participate 
the  public 
information. 

in 

25 

Environment
al Board: 
386  
(16 in the 
Radiation 
Safety 
Department. 

The 
Environme
ntal 
Inspectorat
e: 

175  
 (116 
inspectors, 
15 of them 
involved in 
radiation 
supervision
). [2017] 
342 
[2014] 

326 
[2017] 

Ministry of  
Economic affairs 
and Employment  

Ministry of Social 
Affairs and 
Health 

470 
[2013] 

500 
[2018] 

The ASN submits 
regular reports on 
its activities to 
Parliament and in 
particular to the 
Parliamentary 
Office for the 
Evaluation of 
Scientific and 
Technological 
Choices 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Competent 
authority 

Responsibilities for spent fuel and 
radioactive waste 

DE22  The Federal Office for 

Radiation Protection 
(BfS) 

Federal Office for the 
Regulation of Nuclear 
Waste Management 
(BfE) 

BMU, the Directorate-
General Reactor Safety 
(RS) 

16 Länder 

for 

licences 

regulation  of 

interim  storage 

Federal  tasks  relating  to  supervision  and 
licensing  in  the  area  of  nuclear  energy, 
interim  storage,  repository  site  selection 
and repository monitoring were transferred 
from the BfS to the BfE. 
The  BfS  will  concentrate  on  the  federal 
radiation  protection  tasks,  e.g.  in  the  field 
of  defence  against  nuclear  hazards, 
medical  research,  mobile  communication, 
UV  protection  or  the  measuring  networks 
for environmental radioactivity. 
The 
the  site  selection 
procedure  for  a  repository  especially  for 
high-level  radioactive  wastes  and  the  co-
ordination  of 
associated  public 
the 
participation that has to be organised. 
Nuclear 
facilities and transports of nuclear fuels. 
Procedures  under  mining,  water  and 
nuclear  law  relating  to  radioactive  waste 
disposal. 
Issues  related  to  the  safety  of  nuclear 
waste management. 
Task-related research in these areas. 
Competent authority for nuclear safety and 
radiation protection. 
Legal  and  technical  supervision  of  the 
Federal  Office  for  Radiation  Protection 
the 
the  Federal  Office 
and  of 
Regulation 
Waste 
Nuclear 
Management. 
Responsible  for  the  obligations  under  the 
Joint  Convention  on  the  Safety  of  Spent 
Fuel  Management  and  on  the  Safety  of 
Radioactive Waste Management. 
Land  Ministry  is  responsible  for  licensing 
and  supervision  of  spent  fuel  treatment 
facilities. 

for 

of 

Staff 
[year] 

188 
[2014] 

No data 
[2018] 

Reporting to 

(OPECST) and 
parliamentary 
committees 
Federal Ministry 
for the 
Environment, 
Nature 
Conservation and 
Nuclear Safety 
(BMU)  

No data 
[2018] 

BfE is 
currently 
still in the 
construction 
phase.  

3623 [2014] 

36  
[2017] 

Federal 
government 

27024 
[2014] 

270 [2018] 

22  

23  
24  

Germany as a federal state, the “regulatory body” and consists of authorities of the Federation and the Länder 
–  the  regulatory  structure  comprised  of  BMU,  BfE,  BfS  and  the  Land  Ministry.  The  Federal  Office  of 
Economics and Export Control (BAFA) is responsible for the import and export of radioactive materials. 
Directorate RS III (Nuclear Fuel Cycle). 
About  120  staff  working  on  radioactive  waste  management  and  150  staff  working  on  support  the  nuclear 
authorities of the Länder either at subordinate authorities or as authorised experts. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
MS 

Competent 
authority 

Responsibilities for spent fuel and 
radioactive waste 

EL  Greek Atomic Energy 
Commission (EEAE) 

HU  Hungarian Atomic 
Energy Authority 
(HAEA) 

radiation  protection 

Control, regulation and supervision in the 
energy,  nuclear 
fields  of  nuclear 
technology,  radiological,  nuclear  safety 
and radiation protection. 
According to its statutory role EEAE has 
the legal power to exercise the regulatory 
control  of  facilities  and  activities  in  the 
fields  of 
and 
radiation and nuclear safety. As described 
in  detail  in  Article  43,  par.  4  of  the  new 
Law  4310/2014,  the  competencies  (legal 
powers) of EEAE include:  
-  development  of  safety  procedures, 
regulations and legislation;  
- licensing and inspection procedures;  
- environmental radioactivity monitoring;  
- radiological surveillance;  
- emergency preparedness;  
- research in the fields of its competence;  
- public information;  
-  international  cooperation  and  national 
representations;  
- education and training;  
-  personal  dosimetry  and  calibration 
services 
Following  IRRS  mission  findings,  the 
new 
internal  organisation  of  EEAE 
provides  for  the  operational  separation 
between 
its  regulatory  functions  and 
scientific and technical services. 
The 
administrative 
regulatory  competence  relating  to  nuclear 
safety  and  physical  protection  regarding 
nuclear 
installations,  radioactive  waste 
disposal  facilities  as  well  as  nuclear  and 
radioactive  materials  lies  with  the  HAEA 
in  Hungary.  The  Atomic  Energy  Act 
authorises 
is 
supervisory activity. 
On  1 January, 2016,  the HAEA  took over 
additional  regulatory  tasks  from  the  Chief 
Medical  Officer’s  Office  of  the  National 
Public Health Service. 

the  HAEA 

to  perform 

supervisory 

and 

Reporting to 

Minister of 
Education, 
Research and 
Religious Affairs 

Staff 
[year] 

74 
[2014]* 

75 [2018] 

The Minister 
appointed by the 
Prime Minister, 
the Minister of 
Innovation and 
Technology. 

80 
[2014] 

167 [2017] 

Additional 
tasks 

IE 

Responsibility for 
nuclear safety policy is 
vested in the Minister for 
Communications, 
Climate Action and 

Regulates  radioactive  material  including 
practices  involving  radioactive  waste,  and 
licensing 
radiation  sources 
system.  
The  EPA  is  an  independent  public  body 

through  a 

Government  

34 in the 
Office for 
Radiological 
Protection 
[2015] 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Competent 
authority 

Responsibilities for spent fuel and 
radioactive waste 

Reporting to 

Staff 
[year] 

Environment (DCCAE), 
under the Radiological 
Protection Acts.  
DCCAE is assisted by 
the Environmental 
Protection Agency 
(EPA) to execute nuclear 
safety and radiation 
protection tasks. 

that  reports  to  Government.  Radiation 
Protection Regulation in EPA is under the 
overall  responsibility  of  the  Director  with 
responsibility  for  the  Office  of  Radiation 
Protection  and  Environmental  Monitoring 
(ORM)  who  reports 
the  Director 
General and Board of the EPA. 

to 

IT 

National Inspectorate for 
Nuclear Safety and 
Radiation Protection 
(ISIN)  

LV  Radiation Safety Centre 

of the State 
Environmental Service 
(VVD RDC) 

LT 

State Nuclear Power 
Safety Inspectorate 
(VATESI) 

Radiation Protection 
Centre (RPC) 

LU  Radiation Protection 
Division (RDP) 

the 

assessment 

inspection 
and 
The 
activities  on  nuclear  installations,  as  well 
as  for  approving  detailed  designs  or 
activities  related  to  the  construction  of 
nuclear  facilities,  which  are  part  of  the 
general construction licence granted by the 
Minister of Economic Development. 

is 

related 

ensures 

The  VVD  RDC 
national 
supervision  and  control  in  the  area  of 
radiation  and  nuclear  safety  and  also 
organises  and  coordinates  training  of  the 
personnel  whose  work 
to 
radiation  safety  in  order  to  increase  the 
level of radiation safety in the country. 
Regulation  and  supervision  of  nuclear 
safety,  radiation  safety  of  nuclear  energy 
activities  involving  sources  of  ionizing 
radiation,  physical  security  of  nuclear 
installations,  nuclear  materials  and/or 
nuclear 
and 
accountancy  and  control  of  nuclear 
materials  as  well  as  supervision  of 
requirements  arising  from  international 
nuclear 
non-proliferation 
obligations of Republic of Lithuania. 
Coordinates actions of state and municipal 
institutions 
radiation 
protection. 

cycle  materials 

the  area  of 

weapon 

fuel 

in 

The  RPD  is  in  charge  of  a)  preparing  the 
technical aspects of draft laws, regulations 
and orders b) lays down the conditions for 
licences.  It  has  also  published  several 
guidelines. 

28 

70 in the 
ORM 
Office of 
Radiation 
Protection 
and 
Environmen
tal 
Monitoring  
[2018] 

Less than 60 
[2018] 

No data 
[2018] 

75 
[2015] 

66 
[2018] 

59 [2015] 

59 [2018] 

9 
[2015] 

9 
[2018] 

Ministry of 
Economic 
Development 

Ministry of 
Environmental 
Protection and 
Regional 
Development 

The Cabinet of 
Government and 
the President 

Ministry of 
Health 

Minister for 
Health 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MT  Radiation Protection 
Commission (RPC) 

NL  Authority for Nuclear 
Safety and Radiation 
Protection (ANVS) 

PL  Nuclear Atomic Energy 
Agency (PAA) 

Ministry of 
European Affairs 
and Equality 

1 
[2018] 

Ministry of 
Infrastructure and 
the Environment 
(I&M) 

122 
[2016] 

130 (141 
planned) 
[2018] 

Minister 
competent for 
environmental 
matters 

123 
(including 
26 nuclear 
regulatory 
inspectors) 
[2017] 

ionising 

to 
and 

Secretariat, 

by 
the 
relating 

Develops  policies  and  strategies  to  be 
followed 
and 
the  protection 
regulations 
non-ionising 
against 
radiation. 
Is  the  national  body  which  gives  effect  to 
any  decision  of  the  UN  Security  Council 
or  International  Atomic  Energy  Agency, 
European  Commission  or  internationally 
recognised entity or competent authority in 
the  field  of  nuclear  safety  and  radiation 
protection. 
Implement  the  regulatory  requirements  of 
Conventions  and  other  EU 
legislation 
within the scope of this Act. 
Prescribe  the  fees  to  be  paid  in  respect  of 
the issue, validation, renewal, extension or 
variation of any certificate, licence or other 
the  undergoing  of  any 
document  or 
examination or test required by this Act or 
any  regulations,  directive  or  order  made 
thereunder  and  in  respect  of  any  other 
matters  in  respect  of  which  it  appears  to 
the  Commission  to  be  expedient  for  the 
purpose  of  the  Act,  regulations,  directive 
or order to charge fees. 
Preparing  legislation  and  regulations  and 
policy (including the national programme). 
Awarding  licences  and  the  accompanying 
review  &  assessment  and  evaluation 
Tasks. 
Supervision  and  enforcement;  informing 
interested parties and the public. 
Participating  in  activities  of  international 
organisations. 
Maintaining relationships with comparable 
foreign  authorities  and  national  and 
international organisations. 
Supporting national organisations with the 
provision of knowledge; 
Having 
research 
implementation of its tasks. 
Tasks 
involve  ensuring  national 
nuclear  safety  and radiological  protection, 
in particular: 
- supervision over activities; 
and 
- 
organisational 
recommendations 
concerning  nuclear  safety  and radiological 
protection; 
- 
the assessment 

involving 
radiation 

promulgation 

support  of 

performing 

technical 

the tasks 

national 

that 

the 

of 

of 

in 

29 

 
 
 
 
involving 

in normal 

authorities 

public 
education 

emergency 
of 

the tasks  resulting  from 

conditions 
situation 
situations, 
and in radiation 
and the transmission 
relevant 
information  to appropriate  authorities  and 
to the general public; 
-  performing 
the obligations of the Republic of Poland 
activities 
- 
communication, 
and popularisation; 
- cooperation with governmental and local 
administration 
in matters 
involving  nuclear  safety  and radiological 
protection; 
- preparing opinions; 
-  cooperation  with  appropriate  foreign 
national 
and international 
organisations; 
- developing the drafts of legal acts; 
-  giving  opinions  on  the draft  legal  acts 
developed by authorised bodies. 
Licensing,  evaluating,  monitoring  and 
inspecting  facilities  and  activities  relating 
to  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste 
all 
phases,  from  initial  choice  of  siting  to 
decommissioning). 

(encompassing 

entities 

PT25  Regulatory Commission 
for the Safety of Nuclear 
Installations 
(COMRSIN) 

RO  National Commission for 
Nuclear Activities 
Control (CNCAN) 

Regulation, 
nuclear activities. 

licensing,  and  control  of 

COMRSIN is 
governed by three 
Commissioners, 
appointed by the 
Prime Minister 
for five year 
renewable terms, 
chosen on the 
basis of academic, 
scientific and 
technical merit. 
COMRSIN has no 
staff of its own 
(2018) 
Prime Minister, 
through the 
General 
Secretariat of the 
Government 

4 
[2015] 

3 
[2018] 

No data 
[2014] 

88 
[2017]*  
Number of 
positions 
increased to 
170 
(amended 
Law 
111/1996) 

25  

As  indicated  in  footnote  13,  the  Portuguese  Environment  Agency  succeeded  to  COMRSIN  as  regulatory 
authority for Portugal following the entry in force of the new regulatory framework for radiation protection 
nuclear safety and safe management of radioactive waste on 2 April 2019. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
SK  Nuclear Regulatory 

Authority of the Slovak 
Republic (ÚJD SR)  

Public Health Authority 
(UVZ SR) 

SI 

Slovenian Nuclear Safety 
Administration (URSJV) 

Slovenian Radiation 
Protection 
Administration 
(URSVS)  

ES 

Nuclear Safety Council 
(CSN) 

SE 

Swedish Radiation 
Safety Authority (SSM) 

The Government 
and subsequently 
to the National 
Council 

108 
[2014] 

126 
[2017] 

Ministry of 
Health 

30 
[2017] 

Ministry of 
Environment and 
Spatial Planning 

Ministry of 
Health 

41 
[2014] 

44 
[2017] 
No data 

Parliament 

Ministry of the 
Environment 

205 
[2014] 

448 
(of which 
214 in the 
Nuclear 
Safety and 
Radiologic
al Protec-
tion Corps) 
[2017] 
321 
[2015] 

302 
[2017] 

as 

transport 

as  well 

State  regulatory  activities  in  the  field  of 
nuclear  safety  of  nuclear  installations, 
including  management  of 
radioactive 
waste, spent fuel and other parts of the fuel 
cycle, 
and 
management of nuclear materials including 
their control and record keeping system.  
It  is  responsible  for  the  assessment  of 
goals of nuclear energy programme and of 
quality of the classified equipment, as well 
the  Slovak 
as 
Republic  under  international  agreements 
and treaties in the said field. 
Permanent 
state 
supervision  over  radiation  protection  in 
nuclear  facilities  and  workplaces,  where 
activities  are  carried  out  for  which  it  has 
issued  permit.  UVZ  SR  authorisation  is  a 
condition for issuing a licence. 
Nuclear  safety  of  facilities  and  the  safety 
of industrial radiation sources. 

for  commitments  of 

continuous 

and 

surveillance 

Radiation  protection 
in  medicine  and 
veterinary practice, medical surveillance of 
of 
exposed  workers, 
workplaces,  dosimetry  and  dose  registers 
and  education  in  the  area  of  radiation 
protection. 
and 
Reporting 
radiological  protection  and  authorisations 
to  nuclear  and  radioactive  installations  as 
well as carrying out inspection and control 
and  issuing  Instructions,  which  take  the 
form of mandatory rules. 

nuclear 

safety 

on 

SSM supervises the Swedish Nuclear Fuel 
and  Waste  Management  Co  (SKB),  the 
power  plant  operators  and  other  licensees 
of  nuclear  activities  in  fulfilling  their 
responsibilities 
for  safe  operation  of 
facilities  and  transports  as  well  as  in 
planning 
and 
disposal. 

decommissioning 

for 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
UK26  Office for Nuclear 

Regulation (ONR, UK) 

Regulates: 
- nuclear safety;  
- nuclear site health and safety;  
- nuclear security;  
- nuclear safeguards;  
- transport. 

Environment Agency 
(EA, England) 

Natural Resources 
Wales (NRW) 

Scottish Environment 
Protection Agency 
(SEPA) 

Northern Ireland 
Environment Agency 
(NIEA) 

Health & Safety 
Executive (HSE) 

using 

premises 

the  competent  authority 

Responsible  in  England  for  regulating 
disposals  of  solid  radioactive  waste  on  or 
from  nuclear  licensed  sites  and  for  non-
nuclear 
radioactive 
substances.  
EA 
for 
is 
authorising shipments of radioactive waste 
into and out of England in accordance with 
the  Transfrontier  Shipment  of  Radioactive 
Waste and Spent Fuel 2008.  
substances 
radioactive 
Regulating 
(disposal  of  solid  radioactive  waste  from 
nuclear  licensed  sites  and  non-  nuclear 
premises using radioactive substances).  
It  is  accountable  to  an  independent  Board 
appointed by and accountable to the Welsh 
Ministers. 
Environmental regulator and is responsible 
in  Scotland  for  regulating  accumulation 
and  disposals  of  radioactive  waste  from 
nuclear  licensed  sites  and  non-nuclear 
premises using radioactive substances. 
Regulates  the  accumulation  and  disposal 
of  radioactive  waste  from  non-  nuclear 
premises.  
It  is  an  Executive  Agency  within  the 
Northern Irish Department of Environment 
and 
and 
on 
Government’s 
implementing 
the 
strategy 
and 
policy 
environmental 
including  radioactive  waste  management, 
in Northern Ireland. 
Regulates  health  and  safety  for  England, 
Wales and Scotland. 
Regulates  the  use  of  ionising  radiation  in 
the non-nuclear sector. 

advising 

leads 

on 

Government 
Department of 
Energy & 
Climate Change 
accountable to 
Parliament for an 
appropriate 
budget for ONR 
Government 
Department of 
Environment, 
Food & Rural 
Affairs 

33027 
[2014] 

37228 
[2017]* 

EA: 
70 nuclear 
specialists  
[2017]* 

Welsh 
Government 

It is accountable 
through Scottish 
Ministers to the 
Scottish 
Parliament. 
Northern Ireland 
Assembly 

SEPA: 
1250 
(around 20 
involved 
directly in 
nuclear site 
regulation) 

[2017]* 

Government 
Department of 
Work & Pensions 

26  

27  
28  

The environment agencies regulate the accumulation of radioactive substances and the disposal of radioactive 
wastes at all sites, with the exception of radioactive wastes at nuclear sites which are regulated by ONR. 
Nuclear safety specialists. 
Technical Specialists (i.e. Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Security, Conventional Health and Safety, Fire Safety and 
Safeguards specialists) 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
Her Majesty's 
Government of 
Gibraltar 

Environmental Agency   Her  Majesty’s  Government  of  Gibraltar 
has  appointed  the  Environmental  Agency 
as  the  competent  regulatory  body  (see 
Legal Notice 140 of 2018, published in the 
Gibraltar  Gazette  on  21  June  2018).    The 
Environmental  Agency  Limited  already 
fulfils  statutory  obligations  under  other 
is 
regarding  waste 
legislation 
functionally  separate  from  any  other  body 
or  organisation  concerned  with 
the 
promotion  or  utilisation  of  nuclear  energy 
or 
including 
electricity  production  and  radioisotope 
applications,  or  with  the  management  of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste. 
* Information from other sources to the Commission than the national programmes and national reports 

radioactive  material, 

and 

2.1.5. 

Shipments within EU and to third countries 

Radioactive waste shall be disposed of in the Member State in which it was generated, unless an 
agreement  with  another  Member  State  or  third  country  is  in  force  and  the  conditions  set  out  in 
Article 4(4) of the Directive are met. The Directive imposes conditions prior to the shipment of 
radioactive  waste  regarding  safety  arrangements  in  the  destination  country,  and  availability, 
operation and management of appropriate disposal facilities. This requirement is not applicable to: 
(i)  the  repatriation  of  disused  sealed  sources  to  a  supplier  or  manufacturer,  (ii)  the  shipment  of 
spent fuel of research reactors to countries that supply or manufacture research reactor fuel (and 
according to international agreements), or (iii) Krško nuclear power plant spent fuel or radioactive 
waste shipped between Slovenia and Croatia. 

Spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  can  be  shipped  to  a  Member  State  or  third  country  for 
reprocessing and processing. In this case, the ultimate responsibility for the safe and responsible 
disposal  of  those  materials,  including  any  radioactive  waste  and  by-products  that  could  be 
generated,  shall  remain  with  the  Member  State  from  which  the  spent  fuel  or  radioactive  waste 
originates (Article 4(2) of the Directive).  

In  the  first  report  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  majority  of  Member  States  have  legal 
requirements in place for the spent fuel and radioactive waste sent for processing or reprocessing 
abroad,  among  which  the  allocation  of  the  ultimate  responsibility  within  the  Member  State 
originating the material. In most cases, the ultimate responsibility remains with the Member State 
or  third country in  which the spent fuel or radioactive waste was generated.  For  a few Member 
States issues on the transposition of Article 4(2) and 4(4) of the Directive were identified by the 
Commission. Most of these Member States are, however, well on the way to address the identified 
issues and to improve their national legislation. 

The majority of Member States with research reactors foresee the return of their spent fuel back to 
the  supplier  (USA  and  the  Russian  Federation)  in  the  period  2019-2026,  without  returning  the 
possible  arising  radioactive  waste  back  to  the  originating  countries  (this  is  in  line  with  the 
Directive).  A  few  Member  States  with  research  reactors  have  plans  to  ship  the  spent  fuel  for 

33 

 
 
reprocessing, and a number of Member States with training and demonstration reactors have not 
yet defined the strategy for the long term management of spent fuel.  

There  are  multiple  transboundary  movements  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  reported  by 
Member  States  to  the  Commission  under  the  Council  Directive  2006/117/Euratom29,  which 
requires such movements to be duly authorized. Member States are sending radioactive waste for 
treatment/conditioning to other Member States. In all the cases return of the resulting radioactive 
waste  is  ensured.  With  few  exceptions  Member  States  provide  almost  no  information  on  those 
shipments in their national reports. 

To date, seven Member States that have opted for spent fuel reprocessing will receive radioactive 
waste after reprocessing in the EU or outside the EU in the period 2018-2052 (see Table 5). One 
Member State (Hungary) has not yet taken the final decision on the reprocessing of the spent fuel. 

Table 5. Return of By-products from Spent Fuel Reprocessing to EU Member States 

MS 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

IT 

NL 

ES 

Type of material 

Around 16 % of the spent nuclear fuel from NPP has been reprocessed in the 
past  at  La  Hague  (France).  Most  has  been  returned  and  the  remaining 
secondary waste will be returned in 2017. 

Timeframe 

2018 

Return of HLW from Kozloduy NPP spent fuel reprocessing in Russia 

After 2025 

Return of residual waste from highly enriched Uranium (LRV-15 reactor) sent 
to Russia. 

Radioactive  waste  from  spent  fuel  reprocessing  in  the  UK  and  France  is 
expected  to  be  returned  to  Germany.  Vitrified  fission  products  were  already 
returned from France in the period 1996 - 2011 

First part in 2024 
and second part 
after 2033 

2019-2021 

98%  of  NPP  spent  fuel  is  shipped  to  the  UK  and  France.  The  remaining  2% 
will be shipped to France in 2016. The return of radioactive waste from the UK 
is scheduled between 2020 and 2025. 

2020-2025 

Waste from spent fuel reprocessing in the UK returned. Part of vitrified HLW 
from France received and additional expected to be returned. 

latest in 2052 

Products from reprocessing that need to be returned to Spain are vitrified high 
level waste located in France (spent fuel from Vandellos I NPP) and recovered 
U and Pu in the UK (spent fuel from Santa Maria de Garoña NPP). 

202130  

SHARED REPOSITORIES 

None of the Member States have reported any shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel for 
disposal.  However,  some  cases  of  possible  disposal  of  limited  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
quantities in EU Member States is under clarification and discussion.  

29  

Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM of 20 November 2006 on the supervision and control of shipments of 
radioactive waste and spent fuel, OJ L 337, 5.12.2006, pp. 21 – 32. 

30   When interim spent fuel /HLW storage facility is available. 

34 

 
 
                                                 
About half of the Member States keep shared disposal solutions as an open option. However, none 
of  the  Member  States  has  reported  concrete  plans  or  activities  towards  implementation  of  the 
shared  disposal  solution.  Moreover,  discussions  on  the  shared  disposal  solution  are  jeopardized 
due  to  the  fact  that  most  Member  States  have  forbiden  by  law  import  of  radioactive  waste  into 
their  territory  (see  Table  6).  A  few  Member  States  do  not  expect  progress  in  development  of 
shared  disposal  solutions  and  decided  to  focus  primarily  on  development  of  a  national  disposal 
facility. 

Member States are required to include in their national programmes any agreement(s) concluded 
with  a  Member  State  or  a  third  country  on  management  of  spent  fuel  or  radioactive  waste, 
including on the use of disposal facilities (Article 12(1)(k) of the Directive). In the first report the 
Commission  noted  that  only  a  few  Member  States  submitted  their  agreement(s)  with  other 
Member States or a third country, while most Member States with no nuclear programmes did not 
notify having such  agreements in  place  to  date. As part  of the second national reports only  one 
member  State  (Luxembourg)  notified  a  new  agreement  between  Luxembourg  and  Belgium  for 
management  of  small  amounts  of  institutional  waste.  In  addition,  two  Member  States  (Slovenia 
and  Croatia)  were  working  towards  a  common  disposal  solution  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 
waste generated by the shared nuclear power plant and an agreement on a common solution was 
expected  by  2023.  However,  it  is  reported  in  the  second  national  report  that  a  mutually 
satisfactory common solution is not achieved. 

Table 6. Radioactive waste import and shared disposal policy 

MS 
AT 

BE 

BG 
HR 

CY 

CZ 

DK 
EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

Import for disposal policy 
Import of RAW into the Austrian federal territory is only 
authorised in the case of waste from material previously 
taken out of Austria for treatment purposes. 
Not indicated.  
Import  of  disused  sealed  sources  from  Luxembourg 
within the framework of the existing convention between 
Luxembourg and Belgium. 
The import of RAW into Bulgaria is banned. 
The  Act  explicitly  bans  any  import  of  RAW,  disused 
sources  or  SF 
the  country,  unless  differently 
to 
prescribed by international agreements. 
The  disposal  of  RAW  is  allowed  only  for  RAW 
generated within the territory of the Republic of Cyprus 
and is accomplished in an authorised facility. 
The  import  of  RAW  is  prohibited  by  Section  (§)  7, 
paragraph 3 of the Atomic Act. 
Not indicated 
Import  for  final  disposal  forbidden  by  Radiation  act 
paragraph 86. 
It  is prohibited  to  import  disused  sources  to  Finland for 
the purpose of disposal. 
The  Environment  Code  prohibits  the  disposal  in  France 
of  RAW  produced  in  other  countries  (except  from 
Monaco). 
Not indicated 

35 

Shared solution for disposal policy 
Open option 

Not indicated  

Open option 
Open option 

Open option 

Open option 

Open option 
Not considered 

Not considered 

Not considered 

Not considered 

 
 
MS 
EL 

HU 
IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 
MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 
SK 

SI 
ES 
SE 
UK 

Import for disposal policy 
The  import  of  RAW  within  the  country's  borders  for 
management, including disposal, is prohibited. 
Not indicated 
Prohibition  of  the  importation  of  RAW  from  third 
countries. 
Not indicated  

No  RAW  may  be  brought  into  Latvia  from  other 
countries. 
Legislative  provision  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania 
precludes  the  entry  into  the  territory  of  the  Republic  of 
Lithuania of SF and RAW generated outside the territory 
of the Republic of Lithuania. 
Not indicated 
Malta will not accept RAW to be imported into Malta for 
any purpose. 
There  are  no  statutory  limitations  on  the  importing  of 
radioactive  (RAW)  substances  from  abroad,  for  storage 
and disposal in the Netherlands. 
It is forbidden to import SF and RAW to Poland for the 
purpose of disposal. 
Portugal  does  not  authorise  the  entry  into  national 
territory  of  SF  or  RAW  generated  or  resulting  from 
activities carried out by or under the jurisdiction of other 
states. 
The import of RAW is prohibited. 
Disposal  allowed  only  of  RAW  that  is  produced  in  its 
territory. 

Not indicated 
Not indicated  
Not allowed, except small quantities. 
General  policy  is  not  to  import  for  disposal,  exception 
possible for small quantities from small users 

Shared solution for disposal policy 

Not indicated 
Not indicated 

Open option  

Open option 

Not considered 

Waste disposal in Belgium 
Open option 

Open option 

Open option  

Not considered 

Not considered 
Open  option  (Decision  to  proceed  or 
abandon  this  option  to  be  taken  by 
2030) 
Open option 
Not indicated 
Not considered 
Not considered 

2.1.6. 

Self-assessment and international peer reviews 

At  least  every  10  years,  Member  States  are  required  to  arrange  for  self-assessments  of  their 
national framework, competent regulatory authority, national programme and its implementation, 
and  to  invite  an  international  peer  review  of  their  national  framework,  competent  regulatory 
authority and/or national programme. The aim is to ensure that high safety standards are achieved 
in the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. It is the Member State's decision to 
define the scope, timing and type of international peer reviews as long it complies with provision 
of Article 14(3) of the Directive and is carried out by 2023. Member States are required to report 
the outcomes of these international peer reviews to the Commission and the other Member States, 
which may be made available to the public, unless there is a conflict with security and proprietary 
information. 

36 

 
 
 
The  majority  of  the  Member  States  address  periodic  self-assessments  and  international  peer 
reviews  in  a  general  way  in  their  national  programmes  and  reports.  Some  Member  States  have 
clearly defined timeframes for review and update of the national programmes (which is assumed 
to  cover  the  self-assessment  requirement);  however,  only  a  few  Member  States  provided 
information  on  self-assessment  of  the  national  framework  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management. 

In  most  Member  States  self-assessment  of  the  competent  authorities  has  been  established  and 
carried  out  through  the  IRRS  missions  of  the  IAEA.  While  the  majority  of  Member  States 
reported  IRRS  missions,  a  few  Member  States  provide  details  on  the  self-assessment  outcomes 
related to spent fuel and radioactive waste management. Although the majority of IRRS missions’ 
reports  are  publicly  available,  details  on  the  Member  States'  follow  up  actions  addressing  the 
outcomes  of  theses  reviews  for  achieving  higher  level  of  safety  have  been  reported  by  a  few 
Member States.  

In  comparison  to  the  previous  reporting  period,  there  is  no  improvement  to  be  highlighted. 
Therefore, the implementation of this Article still requires further attention in the future Member 
States’ reporting to the Commission.  

Since  2014  the  Commission  is  supporting  the  IAEA  in  development  of  a  self-assessment  tool 
based on the IAEA safety standards and best practice to enable EU Member States to fulfil their 
obligations  for  periodic  self-assessment  (Article  14(3)  of  the  Directive).  During  the  2017-2018 
period  the  first  ARTEMIS  (Integrated  Review  Service  for  Radioactive  Waste  and  Spent  Fuel 
Management,  Decommissioning  and  Remediation)  peer-review  missions  took  place  in  Poland, 
France,  Bulgaria,  Luxembourg  and  Spain.  The  peer-review  mission  to  Spain  should  be 
highlighted as this was the first time when a joint IRRS and ARTEMIS peer-review mission was 
requested by a host country.  

Most of the Member States indicate in their national programmes and national reports the planned 
international  peer  reviews  related  to  their  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management  only 
vaguely. At the time of submission of their second national reports only one third of the Member 
States  presented  specific  timeframes  of  planned  international  peer-reviews.  However,  the 
Commission  is  aware  through  ENSREG  that  most  Member  States  have  specific  plans  to  invite 
ARTEMIS peer review service and to host missions until 2023 (for details see Table 7). 

Assuming this planning is kept, Member States are on track to implementing the requirements of 
Article 14(3) of the Directive by 2023. Planning of ARTEMIS peer-review missions  likely  will 
need  some  fine-tuning,  as  the  number  of  planned  ARTEMIS  peer-review  missions  varies 
significantly from year to year. At the moment preliminary plans indicate 7 ARTEMIS missions 
for 2021. This planning could be challenging to implement due to need and availability of large 
number of experts to take part in those peer-reviews. 

According  to  the  Article  14(3)  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  are  required  to  report  the 
outcomes of the international peer reviews to the Commission and the other Member States. By 

37 

 
 
March  2019  four31  Member  States  have  reported  to  the  Commission  the  outcomes  of  the 
conducted international peer-reviews of their national framework, competent regulatory authority, 
national  programme  and  its  implementation.  Since  then  another  two32  Member  States  notified 
their ARTEMIS peer review reports. 

Table 7. Recent and planned international peer reviews as per Article 14(3) of the 
Directive33 

MS 

AT 
BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 

National programme and/or  
National framework 

Competent regulatory authority 

2020 (ARTEMIS) 
2022 (ARTEMIS) 
2018 (ARTEMIS) 
2021 (ARTEMIS) 
2020 (ARTEMIS) 
2023 (ARTEMIS) 
2020 (ARTEMIS) 
2019 (ARTEMIS) 

2018 (IRRS) 
2013 (IRRS), 2017 (IRRS follow-up) 
2013 (IRRS), 2016 (IRRS follow-up) 
2015 (IRRS), 2019 (IRRS follow-up) 
2017 (IRRS), 2021 (IRRS follow-up) 
2013 (IRRS), 2017 (IRRS follow-up) 
2020 (IRRS) 
2016 (IRRS), 2019 (IRRS follow-up) 

FI 

2022 (ARTEMIS) 

FR 

DE 
EL 
HU 

IE 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 

PT 

RO 
SK 
SI 
ES 
SE 
UK 

1996 and 2005, IAEA Review of specific 
waste management projects  
2018 (ARTEMIS) 
2019 (ARTEMIS) 
No data 
2021 (ARTEMIS) 

2021 (ARTEMIS)34 
2021 (ARTEMIS) 
2019 (ARTEMIS) 
2021 (ARTEMIS) 
2018 (ARTEMIS) 
2023 (ARTEMIS) 
2023 (ARTEMIS) 
2017 (ARTEMIS) 
after 2020 (ARTEMIS follow-up) 
No data 

2019 (ARTEMIS) 
2021 (ARTEMIS) 
2021 (ARTEMIS) 
2018 (ARTEMIS) 
2022 (ARTEMIS) 
No data 

2012  (IRRS),  2015  (IRRS  follow-up),  2022  (IRRS 
full scope) 
2014 (IRRS), 2017 (IRRS follow-up) 

2019 (IRRS) 
2012 (IRRS), 2017 (IRRS follow-up) 
2012  (IRRS  follow-up),  2015  (IRRS),  2018  (IRRS 
follow-up) 
2015 (IRRS),  (IRRS follow-up requested in 2018) 
2016 (IRRS), 2021 (IRRS follow-up) 
2019 (IRRS) 
2016 (IRRS), 2020 (IRRS follow-up) 
2018 (IRRS) 
2015 (IRRS), 2020 (IRRS follow-up) 
2014 (IRRS), 2018 (IRRS follow-up), 2023 (IRRS) 
2013 (IRRS), 2017 (IRRS follow-up) 

2020 (IRRS) 

2011 (IRRS), 2017 (IRRS follow-up), 2021 (IRRS) 
2012 (IRRS), 2015 (IRRS follow-up) 
2011 (IRRS), 2014 (IRRS follow-up), 2021 (IRRS) 
2008 (IRRS), 2011 (IRRS follow-up), 2018 (IRRS) 
2012 (IRRS), 2016 (IRRS follow-up), 2022 (IRRS) 
2006, 2009, 2013 (IRRS), 2014 (IRRS follow-up), 

31  
32  
33  

34  

Poland, France, Luxembourg and Bulgaria. 
Spain and Estonia. 
The information in grey is provided by Member State through the ENSREG Working Group 2 or other source 
(e.g. IAEA), however not included in the national programmes and national reports of Member States. 
The 2nd national report of Ireland only indicates expected ARTEMIS invitation date (Q3/2018). 

38 

 
 
                                                 
MS 

National programme and/or  
National framework 

Competent regulatory authority 

2019 (IRRS) 

2.1.7.  Notification and reporting 

All Member States have submitted their second national reports to the Commission as required by 
Article  14(1)  of  the  Directive.  As  part  of  their  national  report,  three  Member  States  (Czechia, 
Germany  and  Estonia)  have  notified  to  the  Commission  their  Joint  Convention35  reports  (dated 
2017) for the 6th Joint Convention review meeting held in May 2018.  

With  exception  of  Italy,  all  Member  States  submitted  to  the  Commission  their  final  national 
programmes.  Since  the  first  Commission  report,  four  Member  States  (Austria,  Croatia,  Czechia 
and Portugal) finalized their draft national programmes and submitted them to the Commission.  

In the first report the Commission noted that the national programme of Spain has been drawn-up 
in  2006  and  therefore  some  of  the  information  reported  is  out-dated.  With  the  second  national 
report  Spain  has  presented  updated  information  on  the  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management  activities,  as  well  as  an  updated  inventory  of  the  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste. 
All this information has been used in the preparation of this report. 

During  the  2016-2018  period  several  Member  States  have  updated  and  notified  to  the 
Commission  their  national  programmes.  Almost  half  of  the  Member  States  plan  to  update  their 
national programmes in the coming years.  

2.2. 

Assuring the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management  

2.2.1.  Licence holder’s responsibilities 

Member States are required to ensure that the prime responsibility for the safety of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management facilities and/or activities rests with the licence holder and that this 
responsibility cannot be delegated (Article 7 of the Directive).  

There are no significant changes reported in the second national reports. All Member States have 
measures  in  place  to  ensure  that  the  primary  responsibility  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management is with the license holders and that it cannot be delegated. The provisions presented 
are mainly legal and focus on legal requirements, license conditions and enforcement actions in 
case of non-compliance. However, in several cases examples have been provided with regard to 
the  practical  implementation  of  these  legal  provisions  (e.g.  by  explicitly  referring  to  licence 
conditions  and  their  application).  The  Commission  has  identified  issues  on  incomplete 
transposition of Article 7(1) of the Directive in two Member States and the transposition issues 
are  well  on  the  way  to  be  solved.  Three  Member  States  reported  in  the  second  national  reports 
changes  already  implemented  or  planned  to  their  legal  framework  to  improve  clarity  on  the 
application of Article 7(1) of the Directive.  

35 

Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Management. 

39 

 
 
                                                 
Licence  holders  shall  establish  and  implement  integrated  management  systems,  which  give  due 
priority  for  overall  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  to  safety  and  are  regularly 
verified  by  the  competent  regulatory  authority.  Overall  the  majority  of  Member  States  have 
reported their legal requirements for integrated management system or quality assurance for spent 
fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management  that  focus  on  safety.  However,  about  a  third  of  the 
countries provide only limited information in the national reports on how these requirements are 
implemented in practice. Many Member States provided more details on integrated management 
and quality assurance systems within their national operators, bodies or organisations related with 
nuclear facilities (through examples in some cases), and less or none within organisations dealing 
with institutional waste. A few Member States have not addressed management systems in their 
reports. Since the last report, a couple of Member States have amended their legislation to address 
issues related to the implementation of the requirements set out in the Directive and information 
on the integrated management and quality assurance systems of licence holders was provided by a 
few Member States that had not provided this information in the previous report.  

Licence holders have to provide for and maintain adequate financial and human resources to fulfil 
their obligations for safe long term management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. The majority 
of Member States have legally established requirements in this regard. For a few Member States 
issues on the transposition of Article 7(5) of the Directive were identified. Most of these countries 
are however well on the way to improving their national legislation. 

The  legal  requirements  such  as,  a  license  can  be  granted  only  in  case  the  applicant  does 
demonstrate sufficient human, technical and financial resources, are described in variable detail.  

The  majority  of  Member  States  did  not  provide  further  information  on  licensees  financial  or 
human resources or provisions for bankruptcy cases. Only in very few cases Member States have 
provided  very  detailed  figures  on  human  and  financial  resources  currently  available  in  the 
licensees. 

2.2.2.  Concepts and plans (including post closure) 

National  programmes  are  required  to  include  the  concepts  or  plans  and  technical  solutions  for 
spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management  from  generation  to  disposal  (including  the  post-
closure phase), in particular related to institutional control and preservation of knowledge in the 
longer term (see Article 12(1)(d) and Article 12(1)(e) of the Directive). 

Since the publication  of the first Commission  report  and until March 2019, five Member States 
finalised  and  adopted  their  national  programmes  and  four  Member  States  revised  their  national 
programmes.  The  adopted/updated  national  programmes  overall  have  not  introduced  significant 
changes  and  have  not  affected  the  overall  EU  situation  with  regards  to  the  implementation  of 
Article 12(1)(d) and Article 12(1)(e) of the Directive. During the reporting period, one Member 
State  has  appointed  an  Authority  that  will  issue  a  recommendation  regarding  the  disposal  of 
radioactive  waste,  and  one  Member  State  has  taken  the  decision  to  establish  a  surface  and 
shallow-depth facility for the disposal of its low and intermediate level waste. Except these two 
cases, the situation in Member States remained broadly the same.  

40 

 
 
All Member States have developed concepts or plans, and technical solutions for the management 
of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  in  the  shorter  term.  This  includes  in  general  predisposal 
concepts up to, and including interim storage. Disposal concepts, plans and technical solutions are 
in  place  for  very  low-  and  low-level  waste,  especially  in  Member  States  with  nuclear  power 
plants, while disposal of intermediate and high-level waste, as well as spent nuclear fuel, except in 
three cases, remains to be further developed.  

Only  very  few  Member  States  have  not  described  such  concepts,  plans  and  technical  solutions, 
and state that they will be prepared and included in their next review of the national programme. 

interim  storage,  encompassing  for 

intermediate  radioactive  waste  up  to 

In general, Member States with nuclear power or research reactors have described with different 
levels of detail the concepts, plans and technical solutions for the management of very low, low 
and 
instance, 
characterisation,  sorting,  decay,  decontamination;  volume  reduction  technologies  such  as 
compaction,  supercompaction,  smelting  of  contaminated  metal,  and  incineration;  as  well  as 
conditioning  and  immobilisation  through  cementation,  and  interim  storage.  Member  States 
without nuclear reactors’ concepts, plans and technical solutions consist mainly in the control of 
disused  radioactive  sources,  through  an  up-to-date  inventory,  the  return  to  the  manufacturer,  if 
possible,  and  the  interim  storage  in  a  centralised  facility  yet  to  be  sited,  designed  and 
commissioned. 

Those  Member  States  that  have  developed  very  low,  low  and  intermediate  level  waste  disposal 
concepts  rely  on  surface  or  shallow-depth  disposal  facilities:  landfills,  trenches  and  vault  type 
disposal  facilities,  and  intermediate  depth  disposal  facilities  (a  few  tens  to  a  hundred  meters 
depth). 

Some Member States, especially those without nuclear programmes, keep open the possibility of 
exploring  shared  solutions  for  the  disposal  of  their  radioactive  waste.  In  general,  disposal  of 
radioactive  waste  in  these  Member  States  are  developed  only  at  a  conceptual  level,  and  the 
pertinent activities (e.g. site selection, research, design etc) have been postponed in some cases.  

Table  8  lists  the  existing  and  planned  near-surface  and  intermediate  depth  disposal  facilities  in 
EU. 

Over 30 dedicated disposal facilities for VLLW and LLW are in place in 13 Member States, and 
of these, 6 plan new facilities. Bulgaria and Lithuania categorised their past disposal facilities of 
RADON  type36  as  storage  facilities,  and  a  few  Member  States  plan  or  consider  remediation  of 
existing  disposal  facilities  and  contaminated  sites  (e.g.  Germany,  Estonia).  Five  Member  States 
are planning to build their first disposal facilities and capacities in the next decade.  

Table 8. Near surface and intermediate depth disposal facilities in EU  

MS 

Existing/ 
planned 

Siting 

Commis-
sioning 

Operati
on 
(years) 

Closure 

Institutional 
Control 
(years) 

Responsi
ble 
organiza
tion 

Comment 

36  

“RADON” type facilities for institutional waste built in the 1960s. 

41 

 
 
                                                 
MS 

BE 

BG 

Existing/ 
planned 

Siting 

Commis-
sioning 

Planned  LLW 
(Category  A 
waste) 

Dessel 
site 

years 

4 
after 
constructi
on/operati
on  license 
(2023) 

Operati
on 
(years) 

54  years 
after 
construct
ion/oper
ation 
license 
(2073) 

Closure 

104 
years 
after 
construct
ion/oper
ation 
license 
(2123) 

Institutional 
Control 
(years) 

300  

Responsi
ble 
organiza
tion 
ONDRA
F/ 
NIRAS 

Comment 

Surface 
disposal. 
Under 
licensing 
application 
review  for 
constructio
n.  License 
expected 
by  the  end 
of 2019. 

Existing 
for 
LLW and ILW 
(institutional, 
short-lived 
waste) 

Planned  
near surface 

Novi  han 
site 

1964 

SERAW  Used 

for 

storage. 
Planned 
decommiss
ioning  by 
2025. 

Radiana 

2021 

2086 

SERAW 

CZ  Dukovany 
(existing) 

Dukovan
y NPP 

1995 

95 

2090 

300 

SÚRAO  Capacity 
sufficient 
for 
all 
RAW from 
NPPs 
Dukovany 
and 
Temelín, 
including 
LTO 

SÚRAO  Closed. 

Final 
sealing 
1997. 

Hostim 
(existing) 

Bratrstvi 
(existing) 

Beroun 

1959 

5 

1964 

Ongoing 
(at 
yrs more) 

least  50 

Jáchymov  1974 

Richard 
(existing) 

Litoměřic
e 

1974 

120 

SÚRAO  Capacity 

120 

SÚRAO 

until  2020 
for  NORM 
waste 
First  phase 
of 
refurbishm
ent  started 
2018. 
Second 
phase 
planned 
2020-2022. 

2025 
(=start of 
closing 
process) 
Not 
before 
2025 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Existing/ 
planned 

Siting 

Commis-
sioning 

Operati
on 
(years) 

Closure 

Institutional 
Control 
(years) 

EE 

Planned 

2019-
2023 

2040 

2050 

Responsi
ble 
organiza
tion 
A.L.A.R.
A. AS 

FI 

Loviisa NPP 
(existing) 
(LILW) 

Loviisa 

1998 

2060 

Not foreseen 

TVO 

Olkiluoto NPP 
(existing) 

Olkiluoto 

1992 

2080  or 
2100 

Not foreseen 

FORTU
M 

Hanhikivi 
(planned) 

Hanhikivi 
(Pyhäjoki
) 

After 
2035 

2120 

Not foreseen 

FVO 

Comment 

Concept 
for  LLW 
and 
ILW 
disposal  to 
be decided  
LLW  and 
in 
ILW 
granite 
bedrock  at 
110 
m 
depth  
LLW  and 
ILW 
in 
granite 
bedrock  at 
60-95  m 
depth.  
Planned  to 
be 
extended 
in 2030 for 
all  LILW 
from  OL 
1-3. 
LILW 
planned 
several 
tens 
meter 
depth 
bedrock 

of 

in 

FR  Centre de 

L'Aube 

Aube 
district 

1992 

(existing) 
Centre de La 
Manche 

(existing) 
Cires  

(existing) 

DE37  Konrad  

Manche 
district 

1969 

Morvillie
rs 

2003 

2007 

2027 

Later 
than 
2050 

1994 

Saturatio
in 
n 
2025 
Several 
decades 

300 

ANDRA  LLW  and 
ILW-short 
lived 

(since 

300 
2003) 

ANDRA  LLW  and 
ILW-short 
lived 

ANDRA  VLLW 
disposal 
facility 
Under 
constructio

BGE 
since 

37  

Asse II salt mine remediation is planned around 2033. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
MS 

Existing/ 
planned 

Siting 

Commis-
sioning 

Operati
on 
(years) 

Closure 

Institutional 
Control 
(years) 

Morsleben 
(existing) 

Morslebe
n 

1971 

Until 
1998 

In 
progress 

Responsi
ble 
organiza
tion 

April 
2017 

BGE 
since 
April 
2017 

Püspökszi
lágy 

1976 

2067 

150 

PURAM 

Comment 

with 
in 

n 
delay 
time 
schedule 
presumabl
y to 2027 
Closed. 
Decommis
sioning 
plan 
approval 
ongoing 
Institutiona
l waste 

HU  Radioactive 
Waste 
Treatment and 
Disposal 
Facility 
(RWTDF, 
(existing) 
National 
Radioactive 
Waste 
Repository 
(NRWR, 
existing) 
National 
repository 
(planned) 
LT  RADON 
(Existing) 

IT 

Bataapati 

2008 

2084 

50 

Ongoing 

2026 

Maišiagal
a 

1964 

1989 

PURAM  Waste 
nuclear 
power 
plants 

SOGIN 

Ignalina 
NPP 
from 
beginnin
g of 2019 

Ignalina 
NPP 
from 
beginnin
g of 2019 

For 
institutiona
l  waste  to 
be 
retrieved 
and facility 
remediated
Site 
. 
in 
release 
2023 
Planned 
investigati
on 
possible 
conversion 
of 
an 
existing 
industrial 
landfill 
to 
a  VLLW 

for 

Ignalina 
NPP  

for 

Industrial 
landfill 
VLLW 
disposal 
(planned) 

Decision 
to 
retrieve 
or  leave 
2018 
- 
2025 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Existing/ 
planned 

Siting 

Commis-
sioning 

Operati
on 
(years) 

Closure 

Institutional 
Control 
(years) 

Responsi
ble 
organiza
tion 

Comment 

disposal 
facility  

Ignalina 
NPP 

February 
2019 

2019 

2038 

Active 
Passive 70 

30 

Sabatiškė 
site  

2021-
2023 

2023 

2038 

Active 
Passive 200 

100 

Ignalina 
NPP 
from 
beginnin
g of 2019 
Ignalina 
NPP 
from 
beginnin
g of 2019 

Landfill 
disposl facility 
(B19-1, B19-2 
VLLW 
(planned) 
Near  Surface 
Repository 
(NSR)-  B25 
Short 
LILW 
Ignalina 
(planned) 
Bituminised 
Ignalina  
(planned) 
LV  Baldone 
(existing) 

Lived 

Ignalina 
NPP 

Decision 
in 2022 

Baldone 

1962 

PL  NRWR 

Różan 

1961 

64 years 

PT 

(existing) 
NNRWR 
(planned) 
Pavilhão de 
Resíduos 
Radioativos  
(existing) 

2030 

120 
years 

Selection 
in 2018 
CTN/IST 
campus 

RO  Baita Bihor 

1986 

2017 

2026 

Site 
selected: 
Vrbina  in 
2009 
Čerkezov
ac 

2020 

2062 

(existing) 
DFDSMA 
(planned) 
LILW 
(Planned) 

SI 

HR  Radioactive 

ES 

waste disposal 
(planned) 
LLW and ILW 
(existing)  
VLLW 
(existing) 
SK  Mochovce 

LLW  

LEGMC  Also  used 
for storage 
Operating  

ZUOP 

No data 

2144-2303 

ZUOP 

Planned 

IST 

ANDR 

ANDR 

ARAO 

Surface 
storage 
facility 
licensed  as 
disposal 
facility 
2016 

in 

Pending 
agreement 
with HR 

active 

100 
200 passive 
100 
200 passive 

active 

2025-
2029 
2144-
2155 

Around 
2040 
2090 

After 
2061 

After 
2065 

El Cabril 

1992 

2040 

300 years 

ENRESA 

El Cabril 

2008 

2040 

60 years 

ENRESA 

Mochovc
e 

2001 

After 
2080 

Extensio
n  to  be 

Several 
decades 

JAVYS 

Existing 
facility; 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Existing/ 
planned 

Siting 

Commis-
sioning 

(existing) 

Operati
on 
(years) 

Closure 

decided 
in 2018 

Institutional 
Control 
(years) 

and 

active; 
200-300 
years passive 

Responsi
ble 
organiza
tion 

Comment 

extension 
planned  in 
2018/19 
next 
periodic 
safety 
review 
2019 

Mochovce 
VLLW 
(planned) 

Mochovc
e 

Module  1 
(A1) 
in 
operation 
since 
07/2016 
Module  2 
(V1) 
Constructi
on 
ongoing 
1983-
1988 

JAVYS 

2070-2075 

SKB AB  Expected 
extension 
in 2023 

Extensio
n 
requeste
d 
2014 

in 

2075 

SKB AB 

SE 

SFR  (low  and 
intermediate 
level waste) 
(existing) 

(long 
LLW 

SFL 
lived 
and ILW) 
(existing) 
Forsmark NPP 
(VLLW) 
(existing) 

Oskarshamm 
NPP (VLLW, 
existing) 
Ringhals  NPP 
(VLLW, 
(existing) 
Studsvik 
(VLLW, 
(existing) 

Forsmark 

Planned 
2045 

License 
to 
be 
submitted 
in 2030 
Forsmark 

Oskarsha
mm 

Ringhals 

Studsvik 

UK  Drigg 

Sellafield 

1950 

2050 

100  

VLLW/LLW 
(existing 
vaults 
trenches) 

and 

CLESA 

Sellafield 

2026 

46 

30  

30  

30  

30  

Operationa
l 

Forsmark
s 
Kraftgru
pp AB 
OKG AB  Operationa

l 

Ringhals 
AB 

Operationa
l 

AB 
SVAFO 

Operationa
l 

Low 
Level 
Waste 
Repositor
y 
Limited 
NDA 
NDA 

Foreseen 
extension 
of  capacity 
after  2050 
for 
operation 
until 2129 
Decommis

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Comment 

sioning 
waste  and 
site 
clearance 
waste 

Closed 

MS 

Existing/ 
planned 

Siting 

Commis-
sioning 

(existing) 

Operati
on 
(years) 

Closure 

Institutional 
Control 
(years) 

Responsi
ble 
organiza
tion 

2005 

2028 

NDA 
owner 
NDA 
owner 

NDA 
owner 

Site 

Dounrea
y 
Restorati
on 
Limited 
(DSRL) 
NDA-
owner 

Calder  landfill 
VLLW 
South  landfill 
VVLW 
(existing) 
Dounreay 
shaft 
(existing) 
Dounreay 
LLW 
(existing) 

Sellafield 

Sellafield 

Dounreay 

Dounreay 
2014 

Harwell, 
Springfiel
d, 
Sellafield, 
and 
Dounreay 

Onsite pits and 
trenches 
(existing) 

Near-surface 
disposal 
Scotland 
(planned) 

in 

Concepts,  plans  and  technical  solutions  for  the  management  of  spent  fuel  from  nuclear  power 
plants range from reprocessing to direct disposal. Two Member States have reported reprocessing 
their own spent fuel (France and the United Kingdom), and others have agreements with France, 
the  UK  or  the  Russian  Federation.  A  few  Member  States  have  not  yet  decided  their  national 
strategy with regards to spent fuel management. Spent fuel from research reactors will be shipped 
back  to  the  US  or  Russian  Federation,  if  possible,  but  a  few  Member  States  will  dispose  of  it 
within their territory. 

All but one of the Member States with nuclear programmes, plus one Member State with research 
reactors and planning to build nuclear power plants have plans for deep geological disposal (see 
Table 9 for details). Finland, France and Sweden expect to have their disposal facilities operating 
by 2035, while the timeframes for the other twelve Member States range from 2065 to 2100, or 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
even later. In view of these long timespans, Member States have put in place plans for long-term 
spent fuel storage, mainly planning using dry storage technology for long-term storage. 

Table 9 lists the planned Deep Geological Disposal Facilities in EU Member States.  

48 

 
 
Table 9. Planned Deep Geological Disposal Facilities38 in EU Member States  

Com-
mis-
sioning 

Opera-
tion 
(years) 

Closure 

Institu-
tional 
Control 

Cost (billion 
EUR39) 

Respon-
sible 
organi-
zation 

Comment 

2024 

90 

2110 

Not 
foreseen 

3.5 (2012, 5 
units) 

Planned 
for 2090 

Not specified 

2035 

More than 
100  

After 
2125 40 

25 (2016) 

MS 

Siting 

FI 

Eurajoki 
(Olkiluoto) 
site  
Hanhikivi 
site 

FR  Cigeo:  sited 
the 
in 
Border 
of 
the  Meuse 
and  Haute-
Marne  

FVO 

ANDRA 

POSIVA  Licence for 
constructio
n (2015)  
FVO 
submitted 
an EIA in 
June 2016. 
100 year 
reversibi-
lity. 
Concept 
for 
submission 
for au-
thorization. 
Licence 
application 
for con-
struction 
under 
review 

SKB 

NDA 

SE 

Forsmark 
site 

2020-
2032 

40 

2072-
2073 

Not 
foreseen 

2040 

Until 2089 

2140 

UK 

England and 
Wales 
SF and 
HLW 

2.39 
(reference 
scenario 
40+6years, 
SEK 24.97 
bn) 
GBP 9.8 bn 
(2017/2018) 
(undis-
counted) 

DE 

Site 
selection  by 

2050 

7.7 

BGE 
since 

The cost is 
for a new 

38 

39  
40  

The  terms  near  surface,  intermediate  depth  and  deep  geological  disposal  are  used  in  the  meaning  of  IAEA 
Safety Guide GSG-1 “Classification of Radioactive Waste”, 2009. 
Otherwise specified. 
Law on reversibility (100 years) passed in 2016. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
Com-
mis-
sioning 

Opera-
tion 
(years) 

Closure 

Institu-
tional 
Control 

Cost (billion 
EUR39) 

MS 

Siting 

2031 

RO 

2025 

2055 

100 

2150 

HU 

2064 

2041 

208442 

USD 1.02 bn 
(2 units) to 
USD 2.04 bn 
USD (4 
units) 
(2006) 
HUF 745 
278.5 
million 
(2015) 

Not yet 
establish
ed 

2065 

40-60 

2105-
2115 

Not 
foreseen 

3.7-4.4 
(2014) 

Site 
selection 
ongoing 

SK 

SI 

Site 
selection 
stage 
first 
(2013-2016) 
Site 
selection  in 
2030 

to  be 

Site 
selected 
(2045-2055) 

HR 

~2050 (start 
of siting) 

2068 or 
208843 

CZ 

2 sites by 
2022 

2065 

Respon-
sible 
organi-
zation 

July 
2016 

ANDR 

Comment 

geological 
disposal 
facility 
Siting not 
started yet 

PURAM  Research 
activities 
are 
planned – 
laboratory 
in 
operation 
in 2038 
3.7 bn for 
40 years 
NPP 
operation 
and 4.4 bn 
for 60 
years NPP 
operation 

JAVYS 

with 
Croatia 
pending 
Possible 
agreement 
wih 
Slovenia 
by 2023 

The Fund 
(via its 
RAW 
Manage
ment 
Centre) 
SÚRAO  Ongoing 

site 
selection. 
Two sites 
to be 
selected. 

4.1 (2011) or 
CZK 111.4 
bn 

2065 

10 

2075 

No data  Not available 

ARAO  Agreement 

41  

42  
43  

If  Hungary  opts  for  reprocessing  of  the  spent  fuel  of  the  new-built,  the  operation  of  the  deep  geological 
disposal will be 50-60 years instead. 
It could be 2114-2124.  
Depending on possible lifetime extension of Krško NPP. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
MS 

Siting 

Com-
mis-
sioning 

Opera-
tion 
(years) 

Closure 

Institu-
tional 
Control 

Cost (billion 
EUR39) 

Respon-
sible 
organi-
zation 

LT 

Site selected 
by 2033 

2066 

6 

2072 

1.89 (2004 
prices) 

Ignalina 
NPP 

Comment 

From 2019 
Ignalina 
NPP takes 
over all 
responsibil
ities of 
RATA 

2069 

3 (2005)44 

ENRESA 

ES 

BG 

Site 
selection 
2023-2027 
Prefeasibi-
lity study 
ongoing and 
6 potential 
sites 
selected 

NL  Decision  in 

100 years 

About 
2130 

BE 

No date 
defined 
pending 
national 
policy 

Not 
available 

20 years 
after 
authorisati
on is 
given 

PL 

22nd century 

22nd 
century 

Around 50 
years 

At least 
100 
years 
after 
construct
ion and 
operatin
g license 
Mid-22nd 
century 

Not available 

SERAW  No con-
cepts as 
yet for 
ILW / 
HLW other 
than 
interim 
storage  

2 (2017) 

COVRA  Cost 

estimate 
updated in 
the 
OPERA 
reseach 
programm
e (costs 
discounted 
to 2130, 
real term 
2017) 
The 
disposal 
cost is for 
waste 
category B 
and 
category C 

3.2 (2012) 

ONDRA
F/NIRAS 

Not available 

ZUOP 

New build  

44  

Data  from  the  6th  General  Radioactive  Waste  Plan.  In  addition,  the  estimated  total  cost  for  spent  fuel 
management is about EUR 7 bn (2015) for a 40 years NPP operation scenario. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Less detail has been provided regarding the management of institutional waste in those Member 
States  with  nuclear  programmes.  Institutional  waste  is  incorporated  to  the  existing  management 
routes  for  radioactive  waste  generated  in  the  nuclear  power  plants  and  fuel  cycle  facilities,  and 
disposed of in the existing or planned disposal installations. A few Member States are working on 
solutions for the management of small amounts of radioactive waste (disused sources, waste from 
research  activities,  or  waste  from  remediation  activities)  which  do  not  yet  have  a  management 
route.  

The  national  programmes  should  address  post-closure  measures  for  disposal  facilities  and 
measures for knowledge preservation (Article 12(1)(e) of the Directive).  

No changes have been reported with regards to post-closure measures for disposal facilities and 
for knowledge preservation. As in the previous reporting period, the majority of countries report 
on the legal requirement to cover the post-closure but as more detailed regulations are not always 
available, the information is very general or the post closure measures for the disposal facilities 
are  not  addressed  in  their  notifications.  Of  the  countries  with  a  present  or  past  nuclear 
programmes, only a few have presented detailed and defined plans for the post-closure period of 
the disposal facilities. Some of the Member States present plans for the post-closure period only 
for the near-surface disposal facilities closed or in operation, while the post-closure period of the 
deep geological facilities, or other radioactive waste disposal facilities not yet built, is either not 
detailed  or  not  foreseen.  The  reported  period  for  post-closure  monitoring  of  surface  and  near 
surface  disposal  facilities  ranges  from  100  years  after  closure  for  very  low-level  waste  to  300 
years  after  closure  for  low-level  waste.  Several  Member  States  do  not  require  post-closure 
measures after the closing of deep geological disposal facilities. 

No  developments  regarding  the  preservation  of  knowledge  after  the  closure  of  the  disposal 
facilities  has  been  reported.  The  situation  reported  from  the  first  report  of  the  Commission,  as 
taken from the national programmes remains the same: very little information is available, which 
is  limited  to  studies  in  this  area, as  well  as  clarification  on  the  entity  responsible  for  the record 
keeping. 

2.2.3. 

Safety demonstration 

The  licensees  are  required  to  regularly  assess,  verify  and  continuously  improve,  as  far  as  is 
reasonably achievable, the safety of the radioactive waste and spent fuel management facility or 
activity in a systematic and verifiable manner, by applying the graded approach (see Article 7 of 
the Directive).  

In the second national reports the majority of Member States presented only the legal basis and 
provisions for regular safety reviews. Only a few Member States provided in their national reports 
concrete  examples  on  how  these  provisions  have  been  applied  in  practice  where  available  (e.g. 
safety assessments performed in the reporting period or planned in the future for spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management facilities, reviews of the facilities by the competent authority and 
implementation of the review results to improve overall safety). 

Five  Member  States  are  on  their  way  in  solving  legal  issues  in  the  transposition  of  regular 
assessment,  verification  and  continous  improvement  of  the  safety  by  the  license  holders 

52 

 
 
requirements. The major non-conformities highlighted by the Commission are being addressed by 
most concerned Member States. 

Safety demonstration as part of the licensing shall cover activities and facilities (i.e. development, 
operation  and  decommissioning),  as  well  as  the  post-closure  phase  of  disposal  facilities  (see 
Article  7(3)  of  the  Directive).  The  majority  of  Member  States  have  addressed  safety 
demonstration  in  their  reports  mainly  through  presentation  or  reference  to  established  legal 
requirements.  About  one  third  of  Member  States  (mainly  Member  States  with  nuclear  power 
plants) have addressed safety demonstration in  their  reports though  concrete examples of safety 
assessments and safety cases mainly, for large nuclear facilities and producers of spent fuel and 
radioactive  waste.  Member  States  with  research  reactors  and  non-nuclear  programmes  provide 
little or no information on practical examples of safety demonstrations and their results, as well as 
implementation of emergency preparedness measures.  

Eight Member States still have to resolve legal issues in the transposition of safety demonstration 
during licensing requirements. As with the regular safety assessment, the major non-conformities 
on safety demonstration during licensing highlighted by the Commission are being addressed by 
most concerned Member States.  

It  has  to  be  noted,  that  Member  States  tend  to  provide  more  details  on  the  status  of  safety 
assessments  or  safety  demonstrations  in  their  Joint  Convention  reports  but  not  in  the  national 
reports. 

2.2.4. 

 Cost assessment, financing mechanisms and available resources 

Article 9 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure adequate financial resources for the 
implementation  of  their  National  Programmes.  In  addition,  Article  12  (h)  and  (i)  require  each 
Member State to have an estimate of the national programme costs and financing schemes in force 
to ensure the financial resources. 

Almost  two  thirds  of  the  Member  States  provided  information  on  the  cost  assessments  of  their 
national  programmes  although  the  estimates  vary  widely  in  terms  of  the  methodology, 
assumptions,  completenes  of  data,  scope  and  the  time  frames.  These  are  mainly  the  Member 
States with nuclear programmes and research reactors but there are two Member States with only 
institutional waste who have provided cost estimation. Part of the cost estimates are not updated 
since the first reporting period in 2015. One third of the Member States, mainly those with nuclear 
programmes  updated  their  cost  estimates,  while  nine  Member  States  reported  that  new  national 
programmes  including  updated  cost  assessments  will  be  available  in  the  near  future.  Given  the 
lack  of  completeness  of  the  costs,  nor  an  indication  of  timing,  it  is  not  possible  for  the 
Commission  to  report  a  consistent  figure  discounted  to  the  present.  Thus,  similarly  to  the  first 
report,  the  overall  figure  is  an  aggregation  of  various  “overnight”  figures,  where  available,  and 
cannot be compared to financial resources currently available. 

In the first Commission report the estimate of the total cost of the management of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste in EU was EUR 400 billion (2017). Based on the reported updated information 
from about a third of Member States, the updated Commision estimate is higher, in the range of 

53 

 
 
EUR 422-566 billion. The cost increase is mainly driven by the UK estimate of the undiscounted 
cost scenarios of NDA decommissioning.  

The  majority  of  Member  States  provided  information  for  the  financing  schemes  in  force  for 
implementation  of  the  national  programmes.  There  are  considerable  differences  in  the  schemes 
used by different countries with part of the Member States relying on a fee levied on electricity 
generation or on payments based on characteristics of the waste and some on state budget.  

About half of the Member States provided information about the status of the funds for spent fuel 
and/or radioactive waste management although with different level of detail (please see Table 10). 
Lithuania  and  Estonia  continue  to  rely  on  EU  funds  for  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel 
management, while a number of Member States declared insufficiency of funds to date. 

Table 10. Estimated total cost of spent fuel and radioactive waste management based on EU 
Member States' programmes45 

MS 

Estimated total 
costs, billion EUR46 
(year) 

Timeframes 

Assumptions 

AT 

No data 

No data 

BE 

15.107 (2015) 

Until 2150 

BG 

2.0-4.5 (2015) 

2030 

No  final  decision  yet  on  the  final 
disposal scenario. 
Seven  existing  commercial  nuclear 
reactors  will  be  operated  for  40 
years. 
B&C  waste  will  be  disposed  of  in 
Boom  Clay  at  200  metres  depth 
(financial hypothesis only). 
SF from commercial reactors will be 
reprocessed (contractual hypothesis). 
Geological  disposal  of  category  B 
waste will start in 2047. 
geological  disposal  of  category  C 
waste will take place over the period 
2100–2110. 
Cost breakdown: 
Decommissioning  of  NPP:  EUR 
5403 million2015. 
Management  of  SF:  EUR  4925 
million2015. 
Does not include the management of 
the  SF  and  RAW  of  future  nuclear 
installations. 
Does  not  account  for  substantial 
changes in the hypothesis.  
Decommissioning,  SF  processing 

Generated 
capacity (TWh, 
total estimated 
for the lifetime) 

- 

1748 

807 

45  
46  

Information from ongoing infringement procedures is not included. 
Otherwise specified. 

54 

 
 
                                                 
MS 

Estimated total 
costs, billion EUR46 
(year) 

Timeframes 

Assumptions 

Generated 
capacity (TWh, 
total estimated 
for the lifetime) 

CY 

EUR 500 000 (2016) 

CZ 

4.2 (2011) 

Geological 
disposal after 
2160 

DE 

66.9 (2012)  

2080 

DK 

0.303  
total cost related to 
the implementation 
of the measures 
associated with 
resolution B90/2018 

EE 

0.124  

2003-2073 
Decommissioning 
and SF&RAW 
long-term storage 
By 2073- 
Geological 
disposal 
Up to 2050 

EL 

ES 

FI 

EUR 4.6 million 
(2015: preliminary 
as not including 
disposal) 
19.8 (2017) 

6.5 (2012) 
For 5 reactors (LO1-
2, OL1-3) 

2090 

2023-2115 

FR 

110.5 (2014) 

2135 

HR 

0.87 (2015) 

2095 

and storage for Kozloduy NPP units 
1-4  and  5-6.  The  range  of  costs 
depends  on  the  extension  or  not  for 
units 5 and 6. 
Cost  of  repatriation  or  disposal 
abroad  of  the  legacy  disused  sealed 
radioactive  sources  under  temporary 
storage  
LLW  and  ILW  disposal  up  to  2050 
CZK 3.25 bn (2013) = EUR 0.11 bn 
and  0.037  CZK/EUR);  includes  also 
decommissioning. 
EUR  34  bn  for  NPP  waste,  Asse  – 
EUR 5 bn; Morsleben – EUR 2.4-4.7 
bn;  Konrad  –  EUR  7.5  bn  and  new 
geological  disposal  facility  –  EUR 
7.7  bn;  public  RAW  management  – 
EUR 6 bn; Gorleben site – EUR 2 bn 
(40  million  EUR/year  for  50  years 
until 2065) all at 2012 prices. 
Details  on 
financial  provisions, 
mechanisms,  costing  profiles  etc. 
will  be  provided  together  with  the 
the  new  adopted 
notification  of 
policy 
associated  national 
and 
programme. 

of 

costs 

estimation 
Revision 
including  disposal  before  end  of 
2019 

including 

The  forecast  is  made  on  a  40-year 
design  hypothesis  of  the  Spanish 
NPPs in operation; open cycle. 
future  NPPs’. 
Not 
EUR 100  million  for  near  surface 
disposal  and  EUR  3.5  bn 
for 
geological disposal. 
Including  institutional  control;  EUR 
5.1  bn  for  legacy  sites  recovery; 
EUR  45  bn  decommissioning;  EUR 
25 bn for geological disposal 
Immediate  decommissioning  of  the 
Krško NPP after shut-down in 2043. 
includes:  RAW/SF 
The 

cost 

55 

- 

1334 

5234 

- 

- 

3126 

1041 (2017) 

21076 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Estimated total 
costs, billion EUR46 
(year) 

Timeframes 

Assumptions 

Generated 
capacity (TWh, 
total estimated 
for the lifetime) 

HU 

5.3 (2015) 

2064 

IE 

IT 

The costs related to 
the design, 
construction and 
operation of the 
National 
Radioactive Waste 
Storage Facility will 
be met by the 
exchequer. 
18.1 

No information 
given 

2030 (excluding 
geological 
disposal) 

LT 

2.5 (2005-2014) 

2038 (but before 
geological 
disposal) 

LU 

Estimated 
EUR 15948 per year 

No data 

LV 

1.08 

disposal, 

and 

management 
decommissioning of Krško NPP. 
HUF 1 650 402 million (2015) for: 
- Decommissioning of 4 NPP Units 
in operation; 
- Decommissioning of SF interim 
storage facility (ISFS); 
- RAW disposal facilities; 
- HLW disposal facility; 
- PURAM operating costs, 
supervision fees, fund management 
and support to local governments. 

bn 

for 

for 

7.2 

plan 

siting 

4.2  million 

and 
EUR  1.5  bn 
construction  of  the  Technological 
Park. 
EUR 
complete 
decommissioning of the 4 NPPs and 
of  the  nuclear  fuel  cycle  facilities 
(2017). 
RAW  management  and  disposal  & 
SF management: EUR 560.2 million 
(decommissioning 
2014); 
Closure  of  Maišiagala  repository: 
EUR 
(specific 
programme  2013);  Other  activities: 
EUR  47.7  million  (present  cost 
2014);  SF  disposal  EUR  1889 
million (feasibility study 2005) 
Costs  for  shipment  to  Belgium.  The 
government  states  it  is  capable  of 
covering any cost. 
2002  costs  for  construction  RAW 
safety, 
management, 
Baldone 
compensation 
municipality 
storage 
facility 

Improving 
to 
for  RAW 

MT 

Depending on the 
RAW management 

10 year 
period 

56 

624 

- 

143 

311 

- 

- 

- 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Timeframes 

Assumptions 

Generated 
capacity (TWh, 
total estimated 
for the lifetime) 

MS 

NL 

Estimated total 
costs, billion EUR46 
(year) 

option costs vary 
from EUR 75 000 
(export) to EUR 
900 000 (borehole 
disposal). 
2 (2017) for the 
geological disposal. 
The cost of the 
above-ground 
management of 
RAW at COVRA is 
estimated at approx. 
EUR 7.5-8.5 million 
per year (excluding 
transport and 
processing costs) 

2130 

PL 

PT 

0.099 

0.0025 

RO 

1.8 to 3.5 

SE 

9.7 (2016) 

SI 

0.31 (2005) 

2025 

Geological 
repository 
development 
should start from 
2040 
Remaining basic 
costs, from and 
including 2018 
2006-2065 

SK 
UK 

8 (2014) 
GBP 121 bn 
(GBP 234.1 bn – 
discounted) 
(2018) 

2060 
2135 

- 

- 

- 

448 

3216 

138 

707 

3445 

for  SF 

SF  predisposal;  SF  disposal;  RAW 
predisposal;  RAW  disposal;  400  m3  
HLW;  70000  m3  LILW;158000  m3 
NORM. 
Costs 
reprocessing  and 
disposal are not available in national 
programme. 
Costs  for  research  (to  date)  amount 
to:  EUR  31  million  (OPLA)  +  EUR 
3.5  million  (CORA)  +  EUR  10 
million 
44.5 
(OPERA):  EUR 
million, financed in their entirety by 
the Ministry of Economic Affairs  
Update of the costs is ongoing 

Cost  for  the  SF  transfer  to  USA 
remaining fuel & decommissioning 
Average of 1.8 and 3.5.  
3.5 (includes 2 new reactors) and 1.8 
without new build. 

Based  on  40+6  years  of  NPPs 
operation period, SEK 101.4 bn. 

costs 

Total 
extrapolated from 2006-2015 costs. 

2005-2065 

for 

The  NDA,  having  considered  a 
number  of  scenarios,  continues  to 
cost 
estimate 
within  a  potential  range  from  GBP 
99 bn (EUR 115 bn) to GBP 225 bn 
(EUR 261 bn) 

the  undiscounted 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 11. Financial mechanisms and accumulated funds by Member State 

MS 

Financial 
mechanisms 
(organisation) 

Gradual 

Type of 
Fund: 
Internal 
(I)/ 
External 
(E) 

Funds 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Total 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Preliminary 
estimate of 
available 
funds47 (%) 

Comments 

No 
information 

- 

No 
information 

- 

- 

- 

0.057 (2016) 
(BGN 0.112 
bn) 

0.74 (2016) 
(BGN 1.445 
bn) 
No 
information 

0.797 (2016) 

- 

- 

AT  Treatment fee 
(NES) 

Disposal fee 
(transferred 
from NES to 
the State) 

BE  Long-Term 
Fund 
(NIRAS/OND
RAF) 

Medium-term 
Fund 
(NIRAS/OND
RAF) 
BG  Radioactive 
waste 
management 
fund (SE 
RAW) 
Decommission
ing fund (SE 
RAW) 

Both fees 
are paid 
upon 
transfer 
of the 
RAW to 
NES 
Both 
funds 
financed 
by RAW 
producer
s 

Annual 
fees 

Annual 
fees 

I 

E 

E 

CY  Fund planned   Currently 

genera-
tors’ fees 
and State 
budget 

Annual 
fees 

CZ  Nuclear 

Account for 
SF & RAW 
(Ministry of 
Finance) 

The fund costs 
will cover RAW 
management  
(including 
disposal), 
decommissioning, 
R&D, etc. 
CZK 37.4 bn, 
2014 (0.037 
CZK/EUR) 

Current 
cost/financial 
scheme report not 

E 

1.4 (2014) 

1.4 (2014) 

33 

DE  Waste 

Management 
Fund (public-

I 

Fee for 
interim 
storage 

24.1 from 
NPPs 
operators 

47  

The costs notified by Member States have not been verified by the Commission. The figure in the column is 
indicative  and  is  based  on  the  available  financial  resources  vs  total  costs  in  the  national  programme  as 
reported by a Member State. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
MS 

Financial 
mechanisms 
(organisation) 

Gradual 

Type of 
Fund: 
Internal 
(I)/ 
External 
(E) 

Funds 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Total 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Preliminary 
estimate of 
available 
funds47 (%) 

law 
foundation) 

and 
disposal
48; 

paid in 
(2017) 

Comments 

available 

State 
funds 

No 
information 
No fund 
established 

-  

- 

-  

- 

- 

- 

EUR 1 
million 
(2018) 

Annual 
fees 

E 

No 
information 

No 
information 

Annual 
fees 

Licensee
s create a 
portfolio 
of 
dedicated 
assets. 

Annual 
fees 

E 

I 

2.584 (2017)  2.584 (2017) 

40 

55.9 
(31/12/2015) 

E 

0.25 (2017) 

29 

DK  Danish State 

EE  A.L.A.R.A. 
AS  

State budget 
funds and 
RAW 
producers 
Independent 
deposit fund 

EL 

ES  Fund for the 
financing of 
activities 
included in the 
General RAW 
Plan 
(ENRESA) 

FI  The State 

Nuclear Waste 
Management 
Fund 
FR  Portfolio of 

dedicated 
assets under 
the 
responsibility 
of the license 
holder. 
HR  Fund for Fi-
nancing the 
Decommis-
sioning of the 
Krško NPP 
and the Dis-
posal of NPP 

Revision of 
funding 
mechanisms 
before end of 
2019  
Total costs 
incurred up to 
31/12/2014 - 
EUR 5.2 billion 

Based on 5 
reactors 

When sold, the 
assets must cover 
the entire 
estimated cost. 

48  

NPP  operators  continue  to  be  responsible  for  the  entire  management  and  financing  of  decommissioning, 
dismantling and proper packaging of the radioactive waste until interim storage. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Type of 
Fund: 
Internal 
(I)/ 
External 
(E) 

Funds 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Total 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Preliminary 
estimate of 
available 
funds47 (%) 

E 

0.8 (2015) 

0.8 (2015) 

15 

MS 

Financial 
mechanisms 
(organisation) 

Gradual 

RAW and SF 

HU  Central 
Nuclear 
Financial 
Fund 

Annual 
fees 

- 

EUR 50 000 
allocated 
annualy for 
management 
of orphan 
sources 

No 
information 

- 

- 

- 

No 
information 

No 
information  

- 

State 
budget 

I 

IE  Radioactive 
waste 
management 
fund 
(DCCAE) 

Annual 
fee (levy 
on the 
electricit
y) 

IT 

State pays for 
state owned 
facilities. 
SOGIN 
manages the 
funds for 
waste 
management 

LT  Decommission

ing Fund for 
Ignalina 
Nuclear Power 
Plant; State 
Budget; 
Ignalina 
International 
Decommission
ing Support 
Fund; Ignalina 
Programme; 
Other. 

LU  Government 
will provide 

No funds 
created  

No funds 
created 

- 

- 

60 

Comments 

Fund to cover the 
costs for 
management of 
RAW, SF and 
decommissioning; 
HUF 246 386 
million, 2015 
(0.0032HUF/ 
EUR) 
Costs related to 
the design, 
construction and 
operation of the 
National RAW 
Storage Facility 
will be met by the 
exchequer 
The national 
programme cost 
is until 2030 and 
exclude 
geological 
disposal. Private 
generators shall 
pay to a fund (no 
details on the 
fund available) 
The national 
report indicates 
that the funds are 
sufficient for SF 
and RAW 
management until 
2020. Reliance on 
EU funds after 
2020. 
Decommissioning 
continues until 
2038. 
No funds for deep 
geological 
disposal facility. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Financial 
mechanisms 
(organisation) 

Gradual 

Type of 
Fund: 
Internal 
(I)/ 
External 
(E) 

Funds 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Total 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Preliminary 
estimate of 
available 
funds47 (%) 

Comments 

necessary 
resources 
LV  Currently 

generators’ 
fees and State 
budget 
MT  Polluter pays 

NL  COVRA  

PL  Polluter pays 

(National 
RAW Agency 
(PAA) 

PT  Disposal 
revenue; 
General state 
budget and 
IST budget 

Currently 
gene-
rators’ 
fees  

Fees 
charged 
to license 
holders 
(includin
g all 
estimated 
costs for 
processin
g, 
storage, 
research 
and 
geologica
l 
disposal) 
Quarter 
annual 
fees 

Fees 
from 
producer
s 

No 
information 

No 
information 

- 

- 

- 

- 

E 

0.08955 
(2017) 

- 

4.4 

0 (2018) 

No 
information 

- 

- 

- 

- 

61 

Provisions for 
Salaspils research 
reactor assumed 
by the State 
Each owner of a 
source will need 
to pay a fee for 
disposal to the 
Government 
The Government 
will meet any 
short-fall between 
the expenses and 
the income.State 
to cover the cost 
of orphan 
sources. 
At December 31, 
2017, the 
provision for 
disposal at 
COVRA 
amounted EUR 
89.55 million. 

No decision on 
the Polish 
Nuclear Power 
Programme 
US transfer of 
remaining fuel to 
be covered by the 
State; increase of 
fees foreseen in 
2015 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Financial 
mechanisms 
(organisation) 

Gradual 

RO  Waste 

Disposal Fund 
(ANDR) 

Annual 
fees 

Type of 
Fund: 
Internal 
(I)/ 
External 
(E) 

Funds 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Total 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Preliminary 
estimate of 
available 
funds47 (%) 

E 

0.102 (2014)  0.15 (2014) 

4 - 8 

Decommission
ing Fund 
(ANDR) 

Annual 
fees 

E 

0.047 (2014) 

SE  Nuclear Waste 

Fund 

Annual 
fees 

SI 

Studsvik 
Legacy Fund 
Non-nuclear 
waste manage-
ment of 
orphan 
sources 
Slovenia and 
Croatia 
governments 
established a 
Decommission
ing Fund for 
NEK. 
Other nuclear 
installation are 
funded by 
Slovenian 
Government 

SK  National 

Nuclear Fund 

Slovenia’
s share of 
the funds 
for NEK 
are being 
collected 
through 
levy for 
the kWh 
delivered 
to the 
Slovenia
n grid 
(0.30 
EUR/ 
kWh). 
Annual 
fees 

EUR 7 bn in 
2017  
Guarantees: 
EUR 1.66 bn 
SEK 1.116 
bn (2017) 
SEK 11 
million extra 
-2016-2018 

0.195 (2016) 

0.195 (2016) 

13 

E 

I 

E 

E 
State 
funds 

E 

1.2 (2015) 

1.2 (2015) 

18 

62 

Comments 

4% for new build 
scenario and 8% 
without new 
build. Financing 
mechanism under 
revision to 
address the 
insufficiency of 
funds 
RON 209 million 
(EUR 47 million) 

Estimates only 
made for period 
2006-2015. 
Financing the 
decommissioning 
of the NPP and 
for the disposal of 
NPP RAW  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Financial 
mechanisms 
(organisation) 

Gradual 

Type of 
Fund: 
Internal 
(I)/ 
External 
(E) 

Funds 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Total 
accumu 
lated, 
billion EUR 
(year) 

Preliminary 
estimate of 
available 
funds47 (%) 

UK  NDA Fund 

State 
funds 

83.8 (2015) 

30-70 
depending on 
the scenarios 

Comments 

GBP 67 bn = (0.8 
GBP/EUR) 
(activities until 
2135, and total 
NDA cost 
between GBP 99-
225 bn) 

Nuclear 
Liabilities 
Fund 

Annual 
fee 

E 

GBP 9.26 bn 
(2018) 

Limited  information  has  been  reported  on  the  funds'  investments  and  management  to  ensure 
availability of funds when needed in the future, and therefore, the Commission is not in a position 
to assess whether the Directive is complied with on this point.  

2.2.5.  Expertise and skills 

All parties in Member States have to make arrangements for education and training for their staff, 
as well as research and development activities to cover the needs of the national programme for 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management in order to obtain, maintain and to further develop 
necessary expertise and skills (Article 8 of the Directive). 

Very  little  change  or  developments  are  reported  in  the  second  national  reports  compared  to  the 
situation three years ago. More than half of the Member States have not indicated any change with 
regards to arrangements for education and training. 

Three  quarters  of  Member  States  have  legal  requirements  for  training  and  education  of  staff 
involved  in  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management.  Slightly  more  than  one  third  of  the 
Member States only report on the legal requirements for training and education without providing 
information/examples on the implementation of these legal requirements. Six Member States are 
on  their  way  in  solving  legal  issues  in  the  transposition  of  the  training  and  education 
requirements. In general, training and education of the regulatory authority is better defined than 
the training and education of operators and other stakeholders/licensees. 

Research and development activities are well covered by one third of the Member States, all being 
countries with nuclear programmes. Almost half of the Member States do not report or report only 
in very generic terms on their research and development activities. All countries without nuclear 
programmes  have  difficulties  in  covering  the  research  and  development  requirements  of  the 
Directive.  Five  Member  States  are  working  on  solving  legal  issues  in  the  transposition  of  the 
research and development requirements.   

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nuclear  power  countries  have  in  general  more  developed  formal  arrangements  for  training  and 
education,  and  definitely  for  research  and  development  activities.  International  exchange  of 
experience  through  peer  reviews,  workshops,  conferences,  visits,  etc.  has  been  recognized  by 
Member States as useful tool in particular for non-nuclear Member States. 

National  schemes  and  arrangements  used  by  Member  States  remain  unchanged  and  are 
summarised below: 

  Post-graduate courses at universities;  

  Training centres (basic and specialized, some of which at nuclear power plants); 

  Training programmes or plans (i.e. at national, facility, or organizational entity level); 

  Regular self-assessments of staff and needs analysis; 

  Specialised,  regular  training  for  different  levels  of  staff  (e.g.  or  on-the  job  training  with 

experienced staff); 

  Specialised courses (e.g. for newcomers or experienced staff). 

In  the  second  national  reports  it  was  highlighted,  mainly  by  non-nuclear  Member  States,  that 
international  experience  exchange  through  peer  reviews,  workshops,  conferences,  visits,  etc. 
serves as a valuable tool for training and education of staff. 

2.2.6.  Research and development 

Each  Member  State  programme  is  required  to  include  the  research,  development  and 
demonstration activities needed in order to implement solutions for safe long term management of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste (see Article 12(1)(f) of the Directive). 

There  is  very  little  information  provided  in  the  second  national  reports  on  the  research, 
development  and  demonstration  activities  planned  to  support  implementation  of  the  solutions 
needed  for  safe  long  term  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  in  Member  States. 
Only one third of the Member States, mainly having large and medium size nuclear programmes, 
provided details on their research programmes, and presented the progress made.  

Most of the Member States with smaller nuclear programmes presented in very general terms the 
research and development activities and timeframes concerning final disposal of ILW, HLW and 
spent  fuel.  A  few  Member  States  recognize  the  need  for  dedicated  research  in  management  of 
exotic waste and fuel. 

One third of Member States  have  not  reported any details or  confirmed that they do not  have a 
specific research programme defined. Small Member States without spent fuel and having small 
radioactive  waste  inventories  (disused  radioactive  sources only)  usually  do  not  develop  specific 
research,  development and demonstration programmes  but  rely  on participating in, or  following 
the results of international programmes or projects (e.g. the International Atomic Energy Agency, 
European  Commission) in  line  with  their  radioactive  waste management  needs.  A  few  of  these, 
recognising  the  importance  of  research,  plan  to  develop  their  own  research,  development  and 
demonstration activities and describe them in future reviews of their national programmes. 

64 

 
 
Overall,  the  situation  remains  unchanged  -  the  research  programmes  in  the  EU  are  at  different 
stages  of  implementation  by  Member  States  depending  on  the  status  of  implementation  of  their 
national  programmes.  Only  a  few  Member  States  have  established  research,  development  and 
demonstration  programmes  that  are  comprehensive  and  support  the  implementation  of  their 
national programmes. Some of these periodically review and update their research programmes. 
The  most  advanced  are  Member  States  with  significant  progress  in  development  of  deep 
geological  disposal  facilities.  Usually,  these  Member  States  carry  out  a  national  research 
programme, and are actively participating in international research, namely Euratom research. In 
addition, strong international cooperation and exchanges have been established at European level, 
and internationally.  

In the specific area of research for deep geological disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear 
fuel,  four  Member  States  currently  operate  five  underground  research  laboratories  (URL)  for 
spent fuel, HLW and ILW disposal. A Member State who discontinued research in its URL plans 
to  restart  its  operation  in  the  coming  years.  Four  more  Member  States  plan  to  develop  such 
laboratories after 2020-2030 to support the national geological disposal projects (see Table 12). 

Table 12. Underground research laboratories (URL) for Disposal of HLW/Spent Fuel in 
EU49 

MS 

URL 

Site 

Status 

Purpose 

BE 

HADES 

SCK•CEN 
site at Mol 

In operation 

CZ 

Planned 

FI 

ONKALO 

To be 
selected 
Eurajoki  

2030 

In operation  

FR 

Bure 

Meuse/Haute 
Marne 

In operation since 
2006 

Tournemire 

Southern 
Aveyron 

In operation since 
1990 

Methodological and non-site-
specific URL in Boom clay 
(poorly-indurated) at ~ 230 m 
depth on; has been extended 
as part of ongoing PRACLAY 
project.  
Long term site investigations 

Waste characterization, 420 m 
depth, planned to be 
incorporated into disposal 
facility with first disposal 
about 2025 
Callovo-Oxfordian clay (hard) 
at ~ 450 - 500 m depth 

Methodological laboratory 
(former train tunnel) in 
sediments (hard clay), 250m 
depth  

Responsible 
organization for 
facility 
development 

EURIDICE 
(cooperation of 
ONDRAF/NIRAS 
& SCK CEN)  

SURAO 

POSIVA 

ANDRA 

IRSN 

49  

Several  Member  States  carry  out  experimental  work  in  the  Grimsel  Test  Site  (Switzerland),  which  is  in 
operation since 1984. The facilities in grey are not in operation any longer. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
HU 

Planned 

Western 
Mecsek 

PL 

PURL 

Planned 

Preparation 2019-
2032 (design) 
2032-2038 
(operation) 
Planned 

Preparation 
implementation 
geological 
programme 
Research for the DGR 

of 

for 
the 
disposal 

PURAM 

of 
Minister 
Economy, 
Polish 
Geological  Institute 
– National Research 
Institute  and  other 
interested 
institutes50 

RO51 

Planned 

SE 

Äspö HRL  

the 

On 
selected site 
North 
Oskarshamn 

of 

2030 

In operation since 
1995 

Confirm the suitability of the 
underground conditions  
Granite, 200 - 500 m depth; 
Used for research activities on 
performance of barriers for SF 
disposal. 

SKB 

In Member States with nuclear programmes, research, development and demonstration activities 
are mainly undertaken by the licensee (usually the national waste management organisation) and 
by  research  organisations.  In  some  Member  States  (less  than  a  third)  the  competent  authorities 
have  their  own  research  programmes  or  fund  specific  research  to  support  the  independent 
regulatory oversight. Table 13 gives an overview of research reactors in the EU. 

Table 13. Operating research reactors in EU52 

Under decommissioning 

In operation 

MS 
AT 
BE 

BG 
CZ 

DE 

Not applicable 
Not applicable 

IRT-2000 (extended shut-down) 
Not applicable 

FRM; FRG-1; FRJ-2; FR-2; FRG-2; FMRB; 
FRN; SUR Hannover; RFR (permanent 
shutdown); SUR Aachen 

DK  DR-3 
EL 
FI 
FR 

NTU (Permanent shutdown) 
FIR-1 (decommissioning to start in 2020) 
Ulysse; Phebus; G-1; PHENIX; Rapsodie; 
Éole; Osiris; Minerve; EL 4  

TRIGA MARK II (250 kW) 
BR-1 (1 MW); BR-2 (100 MW); VENUS/VENUS-F; 
MYRRHA (planned) 
Not applicable 
VR-2 (Planned); LVR-15 Rež (10 MW); VR-1 (5 kW); 
LR-0 (5 kW)  
BER-II (10 MW, final shutdown planned end 2019); 
FRM II (20 MW); FRMZ, TRIGA MARK II (100 
kW); SUR Stuttgart; SUR Ulm; SUR Furtwangen; 
AKR-2 (0.002 kW)  
Not applicable 
GR-B; GRR-1 (5 MW, extended shutdown) 
Not applicable 
Cabri (25 MW); Orphee (14 MW); Isis (700 kW); ILL 
(58.3 MW); Masurca (5 kW, temporary shutdown); 
Reactor Jules Horowitz (100 MW, under construction) 

50  

51  
52  

The minister responsible for the economy, the Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute (PIG-
PIB)  and  other  interested  institutions  to  sign  an  agreement  for  supporting  the  concept  of  deep  disposal  of 
radioactive waste and the construction of an URL and initiating integrated research in these areas. 
The National Agency for Radioactive Waste is responsible for the research and development. 
Source: IAEA research reactor database (RRDB). 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
MS 
HU  Not applicable 

Under decommissioning 

IT 

L-54M; ISPRA-1 (permanent shutdown) 

LV 

NL 

SRR Salaspils Research Reactor (permanent 
shutdown) 
LFR ARGONAUT 

Not applicable 
RPI (permanent shut-down) 

PL 
PT 
RO  VVR-S Bucharest 
R-2; R2-0 
SE 
Not applicable 
SI 
UK  DIDO; PLUTO; Dounreay Fast Reactor; 

BEPO; Dragon; CONSORT; VIPER 
(permanent shutdown); VULCAN (permanent 
shutdown) 

2.2.7.  Transparency and public participation 

In operation 

Nuclear Training Reactor (100 kW); Budapest 
Research Reactor (10 MW) 
TRIGA Mark II Pavia (250 kW); TRIGA RC-1 (1 
MW); RSV TAPIRO (5 kW); AGN-201 Costanza 
(0.02 kW); SM-1  
Not applicable 

Delphi; HOR (2.3 MW); HFR (45 MW); PALLAS 
(Planned) 
MARIA (30 MW) 
Not applicable 
TRIGA II Pitesti  
Not applicable  
TRIGA- MARK II (250 kW) 
Neptune (0.3 kW) 

Member  States’  programmes  shall  include  the  national  policy  and  process  for  transparency 
required by Article 10 of the Directive.  They shall ensure that the necessary information on the 
management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  is  made  available  to  workers  and  the  public 
(including the information from the competent regulatory authority) and that the public is given 
the necessary opportunities to participate effectively in the decision-making process in accordance 
with national legislation and international obligations.  

All Member States provide information in their national programmes and national reports on the 
policy  and  regulatory  arrangements  ruling  transparency,  referred  to  the  obligation  to  inform  the 
public as well as providing consultation and participation mechanisms.  

In all Member States some information on the activities related to radioactive waste management 
is publicly available.  

Almost all the Member States indicate in their national programmes and national reports that they 
have  consultation  mechanisms  in  place  for  certain  stages  of  the  decision  making  related  to 
radioactive waste management. 

Half  of  the  national  reports  and  national  programmes  provide  evidence  of  having  specific 
arrangements for dialogue and participation of stakeholders and/or citizens in general. 

The  mechanisms  adopted  to  put  into  practice  transparency  policies  are  listed  in  the  Table  14 
below.  

67 

 
 
 
 
Table 14. Overview of main information and involvement mechanisms  

Information 

Websites 

Consultation 

Participation 

Written submission 

Adapted information products 

Web based submission 

Conference and seminars 

Oral (public hearings) 

Media relations 

Opinion surveys and polls 

Info or visitor centres 

Social media53 

Working groups and 
stakeholders boards 

Local community platforms 

Independent advisory bodies 

In general, the Member States' second national reports offer an uneven level of clarity and detail. 
In some cases, they are focused on the national framework but hardly provide any description or 
examples  of  its  implementation,  especially  as  concerns  effective  participation  practices.  Some 
consist  of  general  statements  on  principles  and  motivations  around  transparency,  but  actually 
providing little factual information. 

Transparency  is  ensured  at  national  level  by  a  set  of  legal  and  regulatory  acts.  We  can  find 
reference to the principle of transparency in Member States' general laws or domain-specific laws 
related  to  the  environment,  energy,  radioactive  waste  management  or  radiation  protection.  This 
includes  the  transposition  into  the  national  framework  of  the  Directive  (Council  Directive 
(2001/42/EC,  2011/92/EU, 
2011/70/Euratom), 
2014/92/EU),  or  the  Aarhus  and  Espoo  Conventions,  among  other  supranational  codes.  Three 
Member  States54  explicitly  report  that  access  of  citizens  to  public  information  (understood  as 
public  access  to  official  records)  is  a  right  established  in  their  national  constitution.  Eight 
countries  report  some  update  of  their  national  framework  relevant  for  transparency  during  the 
reporting period, although the scope of the modifications is not clearly explained in every case.   

the  environmental  assessment  Directives 

According  to  the  national  programmes  and  national  reports,  the  provision  of  information  on 
matters  related  to  nuclear  safety  and  radiation  protection  constitutes  a  legal  obligation  for  any 
entity responsible for radioactive waste management activities. This obligation is almost always 
allocated to the national regulatory authority. In general, Member States declare that the citizens 
can access the regulator's acts on the basis of the right of public access to official records, unless 
there  are  reasons  to  justify  confidentiality55.  Several  Member  States  report  that  documents 
concerning licensing procedures of nuclear and radioactive waste facilities are public and easily 
accessible  on  the  authorities'  websites.  In  some  cases,  every  official  record  of  the  regulators 
activities is systematically published. 

National  laws  can  assign  also  a  legal  obligation  of  information  to  the  licence  holders.  In  some 
countries  there  are  specific  duties  set  on  the  operators  of  radioactive  waste  facilities  to  inform 

53  

Although social media have the potential to become informal consultation platforms, with their present impact 
they are rather information channels complementary to the websites. 

54     Belgium, Slovakia, Sweden. 
55  

In some case the reasons to keep confidentiality are explicitly listed and published. 

68 

 
 
 
                                                 
local  community  in  the  vicinity.  Finally,  other  bodies  such  as  ministries  and  technical  and 
scientific support organisations sometimes contribute to public information. 

Websites are the primary source of information in all Member States. Key documents related to 
the national strategy on radioactive waste management and its implementation are usually public. 
This includes national programmes, national reports, international evaluations and annual reports. 
Countries  with  nuclear  power  plants  use  generally  a  diversity  of  information  channels  and 
techniques, including adapted products that are understandable for a broad audience. Long term 
decisions, such as the siting and construction of geological repositories, are often accompained by 
nationwide information campaigns. 

Almost  all  Member  States  report  on  consultation  mechanisms  present  in  their  national 
frameworks.  Public  consultation  is  required  for  political  decisions  with  environmental 
implications,  including  those  related  to  radioactive  waste  management.  Consultation  most  often 
takes  place  as  part  of  strategic  environmental  assessments,  environmental  impact  assessments 
and/or  during  the  licensing  of  activities  related  to  radioactive  waste.  In  some  countries  the 
adoption  of  new  legislation  with  environmental  effects  is  also  subject  to  public  consultation.  In 
addition,  opinion  surveys  can  also  be  used  to  ascertain  the  views  of  the  population  about 
radioactive waste management or nuclear activities in general56.  

In the case of a potential transboundary impact, citizens and institutions of neighbouring countries 
can take part in the consultation, in compliance with the Espoo Convention57. However, very few 
Member States offer descriptions or examples of cross-border consultation. 

Eight  Member  States  report  on  a  consultation  process  carried  out  during  the  reporting  period. 
These  processess  are  in  general  publicly  documented  and  the  handling  of  the  proposals  and 
opinions filed has to be reasoned by the agency conducting the consultation.  

Half of the Member States report having mechanisms in place to ensure public participation in the 
decision-making  process  beyond  public  consultation.  Participatory  bodies  can  be  local,  for  the 
involvement  of  the  municipalities  and  communities  neighbouring  existing  facilities,  as  reported 
by seven countries. National participation arrangements can take different forms: working groups, 
advisory  boards,  mixed  parliamentary  commissions,  etc.  Nationwide  participatory  bodies  are 
often created not yet for the actual decision making, but for devising route maps and participation 
premises  to  rule  future  processes,  namely  related  to  final  repositories  or  long  term  storage 
facilities.  When  participation  boards  are  settled,  their  debates  are  most  often  minuted  and 
published.  

In many cases, national reports and national  programmes either do not provide any description of 
participation  or  they  offer  vague  explanations.  The  actual  impact  of  the  public  in  the  decision 
making  is  usually  not  explained.  Only  three  Member  States  establish  the  agreement  of  local 
communities as a prerrequisite for the siting of facilities.  

56  
57  

Opinion surveys are used in at least three Member States. 
Ten  Member  States  make  explicit  mention  of  the  Espoo  Convention  in  their  national  programmes  and/or 
national reports. 

69 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Only  one  third  of  the  Member  States  reported  updates  or  relevant  events  related  to  public 
participation practices since the release of their first national report.  

3. 

CONCLUSION 

The Commission has reviewed the notified national reports of 28 Member States and the newly 
adopted  or  updated  national  programmes  submitted  until  March  2019.  Having  reviewed  these 
notifications,  the  Commission  prepared  its  second  report  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the implementation of this Directive. The Commission identified progress, trends 
and challenges in the spent fuel and radioactive waste management.  

In most areas, progress is very little, or insufficiently reported to the Commission.  

The next Member States reports to be submitted to the Commission are due by 23 August 2021, 
when the Commission expects a significant improvement of the quality of reporting.  

70